(OT) - NOT A Major Blow to Copyleft Theory
alexander.terekhov at gmail.com
Sat Feb 9 14:14:46 UTC 2008
On Feb 9, 2008 2:35 PM, Matthew Flaschen <matthew.flaschen at gatech.edu> wrote:
> Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> > When I was last challenged with same request (to test my "theory") a
> > couple of years ago, I've ordered (for USD 0 because it was
> > pre-release beta stuff or something) a bunch of winxp64 downloads from
> > Microsoft's online shop (I was not required to accept MS' EULA in
> > order to obtain copies) and resold one of them on a CD for EURO 6.50
> > on ebay. Item 7133325141.
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2004-12/msg00095.html
> > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/2005-03/msg00084.html
> > The rest 14 copies went to Debians.
> > http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00466.html
> > And I'm still not in prison. How come?
> Well, that settles it. Clearly, if you performed an act, and your house
> was not immediately swarmed by SWAT, that act must be legal.
Are you falsely implying that the act was illegal? Feel free to bring
this to the attention
of Microsoft Legal, then. And let me know what they will tell you. TIA.
"Notwithstanding Jacobsen's confused discussion of unilateral
contracts, bilateral contracts, implied licenses, "licenses to the
world" and "bare" licenses in his Appellant's Brief, the issue at hand
is fairly simple."
-- Brief of Appellees (CAFC 2008-1001).
More information about the License-discuss