[ILUG] Microsoft May Have Rights To GNU Software

[John P. Looney]

On Sat, Apr 07, 2001 at 04:00:49AM +0100, Aaron McDaid mentioned:
> Is it not the responsibility of Microsoft or whoever to ensure that
> the user has read the license - not just that the user had the
> opportunity to read it?
> 
> Even if they could prove I clicked "I agree" they can't prove that
> I was aware of what I was signing up to, even if it's just
> my laziness!

 No, of course not. Can you imagine doing a massive deal - say signing a
contract to build a thousand houses, and pulling out, saying "I didn't
read it properly, so there".

 However, EU law does have a clause that contracts that are obviously
unfair can be nullified. Until 1998 or so, Sun and any other company that
produced an i386 Unix had to pay microsoft royalties. I think it was
because to get the brand name of "unix", they had to use some code derived
from an AT&T Unix - which Xenix was at some stage. Early versions of SCO
and Solaris both used Xenix boot code...but ten years on, after junking
that, they still had to pay the license. Sun got the contract recended
after proving to an EU court that it was "unfair".

 No, stupidity or laziness isn't a "get out of jail free" card.

Kate

-- 
 When I say 'free', I mean 'free': free from bond, of chain or command: 
to go where you will, even to Mordor, Saruman, if you desire. " 
    -- Gandalf, paraphrasing the choice between Free and Non-free software