Firefox gone crazy

| Unfortunately, there's also a more insidious motive going
| on: The cloud fad is partly about convenience for people
| who want mobile access to specific software, but it's also
| about finding a way to make more money from software.
| Auto-updating has become a backdoor method to acclimate
| people to the idea that their software is a rented service
| and not a purchased product.
|
| Was there ever a time when software was a purchased product? I only
| entered the world of computers in 1982 so I don't know the history
| before that. For me, it has always been the case that "purchasing"
| software only gives you certain limited rights to use it. Ownership
| stays with the organization that created it and does not transfer to
| the end user. You're essentially just buying a license.
|

If you've been around since 1982 then perhaps you remember
the uproar in 1999 when Microsoft was caught rummaging around
for registration info. on the PCs of people who visited Windows Update.
They promised to stop. ... How things have changed!

The position you enunciate simply a scam; a claim that only
dishonest software developers could stand by. You buy the
software. You have a right to a copy of the software. Period.
Since software is easy to copy it opened up new issues. Customers
copy it illegally while authors make unreasonable, illegal licensing
claims. Neither one is defensible.

For the most part those licensing claims haven't been tested.
But even Microsoft claims their software is intellectual property.
That makes it like a book. You have a right to do anything
you like with a book you buy *except* distribute copies.
You have a license *to that copy of the book*, not
just a license "to use the book at the discretion of the
author". That would be absurd. You can sell the book, destroy the
book, loan it, give it away... you just can't make another copy to
give to someone else.

Software companies have gotten away with unfair claims
because it's a new type of product. And because enforcement
is often passive. Microsoft doesn't go around forcing people
not to install Windows on 2 PCs serially. That would make a lot
of enemies. And it's probably illegal. Those people paid for the
license and have a right to use the software on any machine
they like, so long as they only use 1 copy at a time. But rather
than confront that issue head-on, MS just makes it nearly impossible
to do so by crippling the software. And people who have paid for
a Windows license have to pay again if their PC malfunctions.
MS claim to license their software to a piece of fiberglass (the
motherboard). How can a piece of fiberglass enter into a licensing
deal?

It's an interesting issue in light of the Amazon Kindle and
other similar products. In that case Amazon presents the
situation as one of buying the book, just as Microsoft sells
you a copy of Windows. You buy the book and
have it in your "library". But actually you don't. You only have
access to stream the book's content from their website.
That became obvious awhile back when Amazon (I think it
was Amazon) was dealing with legal issues around the rights
to books by George Orwell (of all people!). They removed
Orwell's books from the e-readers of people who had bought
them. They could do that because the books weren't actually
on the e-readers in the first place. And they can get away with
it because their customers don't actually understand what
they're losing.

All of these people think they're buying books, but they
only have access to stream those books to their e-readers. They
paid for a copy, which they should be free to read, store,
sell, or give away. (That right was established in a court case
with Macy's dept. store vs book publishers in 1909.) What
you're saying is that if Amazon issues a mickey mouse EULA
stating that the books are only leased, then that overrides
US law.

On 31 Oct 2011, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Was there ever a time when software was a purchased
product? I only entered the world of computers in 1982 so I
don't know the history before that. For me, it has always
been the case that "purchasing" software only gives you
certain limited rights to use it. Ownership stays with the
organization that created it and does not transfer to the
end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
towards the limitation of duration of right to use.

What!
Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
sort of thing is coming in.

One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.
--
__ __
#_ |\| | _#

On 10/30/2011 9:25 PM, Computer Nerd Kev wrote:
On 31 Oct 2011, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

Was there ever a time when software was a purchased
product? I only entered the world of computers in 1982 so I
don't know the history before that. For me, it has always
been the case that "purchasing" software only gives you
certain limited rights to use it. Ownership stays with the
organization that created it and does not transfer to the
end user. You're essentially just buying a license.

Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
towards the limitation of duration of right to use.

What!
Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
sort of thing is coming in.

One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.

It is referred to as the "subscription model". Companies periodically
float a trial balloon. A big one was Microsoft Office a few years back.

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:46:25 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
wrote:

No, it's not. Opera is. Well, actually OB1 and Lynx are, but
snip


Bend over and spread your cheeks.
Now hand me that Opera.
There it goes, right up your ass.....
Does it feel good??????

I bet it does to you!!!
Enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling in your asshole.....

wrote in
:

On Sun, 30 Oct 2011 21:46:25 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
wrote:

snip

Bend over and spread your cheeks.
Now hand me that Opera.

Operas are pretty complicated productions... I don't think I
could hold it in one hand...

There it goes, right up your ass.....
Does it feel good??????

I bet it does to you!!!
Enjoy that warm fuzzy feeling in your asshole.....

Actually, it feels quite comfortable in my brain... Something
you should try getting someday...

BTW, don't all those lizards and foxes HURT the anal lining? Or
has it hardened sufficiently by now from the constant abuse?

Plonk.


--
"Well, Steve, I think there's more than one way of looking at
it. I think it's more like we both had this rich neighbor named
Xerox and I broke into his house to steal the TV set and found
out that you had already stolen it."
Bill Gates to Steve Jobs, around 1983

Computer Nerd Kev wrote in
:

Yes, but it has, in the past, in _most_ cases been a
licence to _use_ it indefinitely. There is now a movement
towards the limitation of duration of right to use.

What!
Where did you hear that? I better keep my eyes open if that
sort of thing is coming in.

One wonders how far these companies can go before they start
to drive away the big business these schemes are designed to
trap, unfortunately it's probably a long way.


You got it right. I think some who answered would consider your post to have
a more childlike grasp than most but it's correct. Licenses have always meen
very varied in their demands and conditions, and while interpretations can
bake the noodles of judges and lawyers for weeks, we're all better off if we
just pay attention to them. As in, actually read the damn things. It's
usually easier to sense the kind of approach, the main intent, that way. The
result is an interpretation that favours the spirit of law rather than the
letter, but in any contest this is still admissible, if the interpretation is
honest.

Some licenses are totally generous, they basically say here it it, it's yours
now, do as you want. Look for anything that aims toward that end of the
spectrum, as we can ALL do this, it;s easy to tell apart from the other end
of the spectrum which is basically this: We own YOU, your machine(s), your
time, the instant you downloaded the software, which we know you have already
done because you could not be reading this if you hadn't. In otherwords, a
trap designed to future-proof their hold on you. The question is brutally
simple: Who is transferring power to who?

The better licenses all aim to protect the source from harm, whether they aim
to get something back from the deal or not. One of the best is the BSD or MIT
type which in various forms aims to grant total license to copy, distribute,
and change, so long as ANY change is noted, and responsibility for it not
passed back to the people you got the code from. It preserves 'intellectual
property' while granting you the right to some intelectual property of your
own. It's generous because unlike the patent system it does not force you to
totally reinvent the wheel all the time in order to make a living if you're
good enough to code for money.

So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act likwe they
do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many. If you
accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the world, you
give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame for that.

| So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act likwe
they
| do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many. If you
| accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the world, you
| give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame for that.

Easier said than done. There's an article he

https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-ter...rs-guide-eulas

If it weren't so maddening it would be very funny. McAfee claims
the right to renew your subscription unilaterally. Adware claims
the right to ban you from uninstalling their software. Apple claims
that by agreeing to their EULA you automatically agree to any
other EULA they come up with in the future. (That absurd claim
is actually quite common.) There are EULA's that ban the publishing
of benchmark results (Microsoft's notably slow .Net) and EULAs
for disk software that claims you can only use the software on
1 disk....

Imagine walking into Home Depot to buy a drill with a license
that says you can only use that drill with non-metric bits, for
"hobby" purposes. The "professional" drill might then be $500
more expensive, and you'd have to buy two in order to use any
drill bits you might want to use. By the time you got through your
attempt to drill a hole could cost more than...well... Microsoft
Office or Adobe Photoshop! And you still wouldn't be free to
tell your friends if you think it's a crummy drill.

On 10/31/2011 12:45 PM, Mayayana wrote:
| So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act likwe
they
| do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many. If you
| accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the world, you
| give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame for that.

Easier said than done. There's an article he

https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-ter...rs-guide-eulas

If it weren't so maddening it would be very funny. McAfee claims
the right to renew your subscription unilaterally. Adware claims
the right to ban you from uninstalling their software. Apple claims
that by agreeing to their EULA you automatically agree to any
other EULA they come up with in the future. (That absurd claim
is actually quite common.) There are EULA's that ban the publishing
of benchmark results (Microsoft's notably slow .Net) and EULAs
for disk software that claims you can only use the software on
1 disk....

Imagine walking into Home Depot to buy a drill with a license
that says you can only use that drill with non-metric bits, for
"hobby" purposes. The "professional" drill might then be $500
more expensive, and you'd have to buy two in order to use any
drill bits you might want to use. By the time you got through your
attempt to drill a hole could cost more than...well... Microsoft
Office or Adobe Photoshop! And you still wouldn't be free to
tell your friends if you think it's a crummy drill.


Perhaps you are completely oblivious to the differences between Patents
and Copyright?

"Mayayana" wrote in
:

| So my advice to all is to avoid licenses written by firms who act like
| they do not know that the world can and DOES work like this for many.
| If you accept their software, all you do is confirm their view of the
| world, you give them YOUR power, and you only have yourself to blame
| for that.

Easier said than done. There's an article he

https://www.eff.org/wp/dangerous-ter...rs-guide-eulas


Actually it IS that simple.

Every downloader is faced with a choice, or they are denied that choice
because they don't get to see the EULA before they pay and accept the
software. In the latter case any court would defend the user because they
cannot be deemed to be aware of the conditions prior to acceptance, and
you don't need an expert witness to demonstrate that the software
installer and download process deliberately concealed the conditions prior
to user install.

So, the only case that matters is one where the end user gets full
disclosure of terms up front, and fails to read before accepting. We
really DO have to at least try. And if it's clear that the agreement is
deliberately long, makes suspicious allusions to secrecy we are expected
to maintain for the vendor's ends, or has any other weird restriction that
has precious little to do with the purpose we want the software for, then
we just have to bite the bullet and click the NO button.

This has less to do with technical or legal problems than it does with
simple human desire. People click their way into this **** the same way
they clicked themselves into a major word debt crisis. It's not just the
would-be junkies who need to learn when to say 'no'.

Once people defend themselves with a bit more savvy, the sooner it will
not be a hopeless case for them to get defence in a courtroom if they
really need it. Software vendors are not entitled to change the law,
legislators do that, in response to elected government. (Ideally,
anyway...) When they say you forfeit legal protection just by saying 'yes'
to their imposed exceptions, they are breaking the law. The main reason
courts are likely to be less than sympathetic is if end users stupidly aid
software vendors in breaking the law.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've never had much trouble finding decent software
that won't bind me to rediculous infringements of my liberty. First base
is ALWAYS look for tools for a specific task. Avoid anything that promises
more. If it looks too good to be true, it is.

| Perhaps you are completely oblivious to the differences between Patents
| and Copyright?
|

I'm talking about claims such as saying that the product
can only be used by amateurs. (A lot of software, like
MS Office, has a pro. version and the non-pro. version
carries that stipulation.) Are you saying that you think it
would be fair if you bought a dictionary or textbook and
had to sign a license saying you promised never to use
that book in any business capacity? You think that's
a reasonable limitation simply because the book is copyrighted
rather than patented? If so then I would like to sell
you some of my software. I don't have any pro.version, but
I'd be happy to change the labelling if you'd like to pay
me an extra $500 for that service. In fact, for an extra
$800 I'll license it to you for pro AND amateur use. And for
an extra $1200 I'll throw in the ability to use it on Sundays.
(For a limited time only, so act now.)