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 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
