[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Social Contract

All your assumptions about me and the licence in question are plainly wrong. I don't know how you come around knowing about my licence, European and German law and apparently everything else better than anyone else on the list (and probalby on earth.)

Mike McCarty wrote:
Johannes Wiedersich wrote:

I was just going to pass this over, but you have requested
that I reply, so I will.

[snip included stuff]

Mike, as I explained in another message, I used the software legally. If

I claimed that you did not have a license, and  you state that you did
not. You used your employer's license, which, if you were doing work
for your employer, is quite proper. If you were doing your own work,
then you probably used it unlicensed. (I don't know the terms of
the license, so I can't speak with certainty.)

WRONG! I used the licence correctly. I had a valid licence for some time in the past, when I used the program. I don't have a valid licence right now, and I don't use the progam any more. There is nothing wrong with that.

Here is an exact quote of where you state you did not have a license:

No, I used the licence of my employer (on the computer of my

 > employer); after I went to a new employer, I couldn't use it any
 > more.

[That is from another message.]

I would continue using the program on an other computer without paying for a new licence, I would use it illegally, but I don't.

In Europe it is against the law to publicly make statements about others that are not true. So, it's you who has broken the law.

I don't believe this at all. I am sure that it is against the law
in Europe to make malicious and untrue statements with intent to
harm. It's not against the law either to make mistakes or to state
something untrue, while holding the belief that it is true. If harm
results then it is a tort, not a crime, I'm sure. IANAL.

You are wrong. In Germany (and probably in most countries in Europe) it is against the law to state something untrue about a person in public. I thought that would be the case in any decent constitutional state, but I might be wrong about the US.

I'll clarify my statements, but I don't think it will have the
effect you hope for.

- to stop spreading false information about me, including information about me breaking the law/EULA in this special case.

Umm, IIRC, I made the statement that if you did what I understood
you to say AND you were working for a government you would have
committed a crime. That is a fact.

No, you are wrong. At least your statement is definitely wrong for Germany. In fact you are doubly wrong: even if I had done what you understood me to have done, ie. using a software belonging to the government privately, it would not have been a crime. In Germany I guess most employers (including mine) have a agreement to allow (limited) personal use of computers and mobile phones, etc.

I also stated that since you were working for a company, then
if you did what I understood you to say you did it would be
a tort. That is also a fact.

No, most German companies have agreements between employers and employees, that allow even private use of computers. I never said, that I used the program privatley, though.

What I understood you to say was that you used some proprietary
software on your employer's computer to create your *own* work.
Not doing your employer's work, your *own* work.

In science both are usually (including the US) not strictly seperate. I can't imagine any scientific work that is done without being done as one's *own* work. All scientific papers are published by authors not by institutions. (The authors usually have an address at an institution, though.)

You never had a license. If, as you say, you used it for your
own work, then you probably in effect used a pirate copy.


I say probably, because I don't know the terms of the license.

Congratulations, you got this one sentence right.

If you
used it for your employer's work, then your employer owns the data,
not you. If your (previous) employer does not mind you having
a copy, then you should be able to work out a deal to have it
exported in a non-proprietary format for your own use.  Since
you haven't done that, I suspect that you do not have any right
to the data as well.


How do you know, that I didn't have that agreement? I never told you that.

I had a valid licence on my employer's computer. You forget the possiblity that the employer consents to you taking your data elsewhere. This may not be common in industry, but it is common in science.

Correct me where I am wrong. I'm just going by what you wrote.
If what you wrote is not what you meant, then clarify. If what
you wrote is what you meant, then point out any errors I have
made in understanding it.

You are wrong almost with anything you write. Others have tried to explain it to you. I have tried. You just appear to be beyond any reason, looking at the world with your eyes and not realizing that the world outside your head is very different from what you _presume_ about it. Here it's really simple: I have never said that I broke any licence. YOU *assume* that it has to be the case. Others and myself tell you that you are wrong. You don't want to understand. Wake up!

Go outside! Look at the world! Try to understand others!

And please stop to permanently disrespect and annoy others as in most of your emails.

I hope you will eventually find out and correct what others find wrong with your attitude shown on this mailing list. I hope you will find a way out of your social isolation. I wish you good luck.

I sent my mail to kindly ask you to correct your wrong statements about me. I don't want to discuss any more. You make false assumptions and you stick to them in spite of better knowledge. You are mischievous to say the least.

Please stop sending this kind of OT mails to this list.

I feel sorry for you, because from your mails to this list you appear to have little or no _usful_ things to do.

Carpe diem!


Reply to: