..Debian rejects Microsoft's "Sender ID" on contractual terms

[Arnt Karlsen <arnt@c2i.net>]

On Thu, 9 Sep 2004 02:01:28 +1000, Russell wrote in message 
<[🔎] 200409090201.28397.russell@coker.com.au>:

> http://www.nwfusion.com/news/2004/0907opensourc.html?net

..hear, hear.  But you guys let the weenies get away with confusing
their "end user license agreement's" with licenses.  Booo.

..any contract has legally binding terms, to both parties.  So we should
refer to any such EULA terms, as "EULA contractual terms".

..note this fundamental difference between these contracts and the 
GPL.  Microsoft may use, study, reverse engineer etc GNU/Linux as 
they damned please, because that and any other _use_ of it is allowed
under the GPL. To distribute, they will have to either abide by the GPL,
or, defeat it.

..these EULA's are contracts; _because_ you have to agree on what; 
their terms, to use their property.  That very agreement forms a legally
binding _contract_.

..we know that, but Joe Sixpack doesn't.  Because we fail to educate
the public telling the truth that includes those 2 "extra" words.

..http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040905212754195
and, to get on-topic everywhere ;-) : Is there a smtp rejection 
code for "I accept no shit from Wintendo"mail" boxes!" ? 

-- 
..med vennlig hilsen = with Kind Regards from Arnt... ;-)
...with a number of polar bear hunters in his ancestry...
  Scenarios always come in sets of three: 
  best case, worst case, and just in case.