Re: Squeak in Debian?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: Squeak in Debian?
- From: Nathanael Nerode <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2004 08:17:16 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20040428141740.GU716@finlandia.infodrom.north.de> <email@example.com> <E1BIwdZfirstname.lastname@example.org> <20040430082314.GA5470@jbj2.jbj.homelinux.com> <email@example.com>
Henning Makholm wrote:
> Scripsit Jakob Bohm <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to
>> physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it
>> usually refers to "under your [licensee as legal entity] direct
>> [legal] control", that is any computer that the licensee (which
>> may be a person, company, organisation etc.) has the *legal*
>> command over, typically by owning, renting, leasing, borrowing,
>> getting as sponsorship etc.
> That's even worse. It means that the license is trying to say that I'm
> not allowed to install the software on my neighbour's computer, which I
> have no legal control over, even if my neighbourt asks me to help him.
Well, if Jakob is correct that this refers to legal control, that's not
correct. I've run into something like this before somewhere. Legal
"control" is a funny concept, which is mostly about ownership, and in the
context of it, funny things happen to the meaning of "doing". It seems,
though IANAL, that the owner is considered to be actually performing the
action himself by asking someone else to do it.
This is genuine legalese, which doesn't mean what it appears to, and so the
opinion of a lawyer expert in the area would be a Really Good Thing.
There are none so blind as those who will not see.