Re: Social Contract
Mike McCarty wrote:
> Greg Folkert wrote:
>> On Thu, 2006-04-27 at 14:55 -0500, Mike McCarty wrote:
>>
>>> Steve Lamb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mike McCarty wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
>>>>>> because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any
>>>>>> more and all work that was done with that program was more or
>>>>>> less lost.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Umm, you never did have that license, then, and you used the software
>>>>> in an unauthorized manner. In short, you used a pirate copy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Uh, no Mike, he was behind door number 3. Legally using his
>>>> employer's
>>>> license while employed and unable to do so once no longer employed
>>>> with that
>>>> individual/company.
>>>
>>> I understand the situation completely. You apparently do not.
>>>
>>> If he created (as he said) his *own* files using those tools,
>>> and not those of his employer, then he used a pirate copy.
>>>
>>> I am morally certain that the EULA did not include a clause like
>>> "You are permitted to let other people who do not have a license
>>> use this software, for their own purposes, so long as you do not
>>> charge them, and they also use this software for you for your own
>>> purposes."
>>>
>>> See my other message.
>>
>>
>> Okay, one question then... This is the same software and EULA, Libraries
>> and Internet Cafes use then for Microsoft Word and such?
>
> Actually, I don't know. I'm presuming on the kind of EULA which
> is involved.
>
>> Have you ever used this software at a library or internet Cafe... or for
>> that matter, have you ever stayed at a Hotel that had computers in the
>> room and had Software installed on them to use?
>
> No. I don't do that.
>
>> I am going to have to report this piracy to Microsoft.
>
> By all means, report me. I have no documents on any of my machines
> created by any MicroSoft products for which I do not have a license.
>
>> Actually, Microsoft does the Licensing via per machine nowaday. So in
>> essence you are saying that employers should have ALL computers and
>> tools (out in the shop) and trucks and other such things 100% locked up
>> all the time.
>>
>> Wow, you do have a real clear grasp on Life.
>
> I have a clear grasp of what is licensed and what is not. If a
> company pays for a license to use software for its own use,
> and someone uses it for other use, then he has no gripe if he
> can't take/use the files he creates as far as I can see.
>
> To put it another way, the acts he committed (if they are as
> he described) could get him prosecuted if he worked for, say,
> a school system. It's called "misappropriation", and it's a
> crime. In this case, since it's just a corporation (AFAIK)
> then it is just a tort.
>
> Mike
I'm really glad we are having this astoundingly mind-numbing, useless
argument about who can use what software for what purpose on what machine.
This waste of electrons is one of the things I find refreshing about the
Debian Social Contract. There's no need to have these idiotic exchanges
about the software it covers.
cmr
Reply to: