Re: GPL and other licences

[Alexander Terekhov]

Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
[...]
> The thing is that the copyright licenses of software like Microsoft
> explicitly say you have to have one license per computer. Now... if they
> were only stating copyright law, would they have to do that?

What they are stating is this: (MS EULA)

----
    * Installation and use.  You may install, use, access,
      display and run one copy of the Product on a single
      computer, such as a workstation, terminal or other device
      ("Workstation Computer").  The Product may not be used
      by more than two (2) processors at  any one time on any
      single Workstation Computer. You may permit a maximum
      of ten (10) computers or other electronic devices (each
      a "Device") to connect to the Workstation Computer to
      utilize the services of the Product solely for File and
      Print services, Internet Information Services, and remote
      access (including connection sharing and telephony
      services).  The ten connection maximum includes any
      indirect connections made through "multiplexing" or other
      software or hardware which pools or aggregates
      connections.  Except as otherwise permitted by the
      NetMeeting, Remote Assistance, and Remote Desktop
      features described below, you may not use the Product
      to permit any Device to use, access, display or run other
      executable software residing on the Workstation Computer,
      nor may you permit any Device to use, access, display,
      or run the Product or Product's user interface, unless
      the Device has a separate license for the Product.   

[...]

    * Storage/Network Use. You may also store or install a copy
      of the Product on a storage device, such as a network
      server, used only to install or run the Product on your
      other Workstation Computers over an internal network;
      however, you must acquire and dedicate an additional
      license for each separate Workstation Computer on or
      from which the Product is installed, used, accessed,
      displayed or run. A license for the Product may not be
      shared or used concurrently on different Workstation
      Computers.

[...]

 4. TRANSFER-Internal.  You may move the Product to a different
    Workstation Computer.  After the transfer, you must
    completely remove the Product from the former Workstation
    Computer.  Transfer to Third Party. The initial user of the
    Product may make a one-time transfer of the Product to
    another end user.  The transfer has to include all
    component parts, media, printed materials, this EULA, and
    if applicable, the Certificate of Authenticity.  The
    transfer may not be an indirect transfer, such as a
    consignment.  Prior to the transfer, the end user receiving
    the transferred Product must agree to all the EULA terms. 
    No Rental.  You may not rent, lease, lend or provide
    commercial hosting services to third parties with the
    Product. 

[...]

 6. TERMINATION. Without prejudice to any other rights, Microsoft
    may cancel this EULA if you do not abide by the terms and
    conditions of this EULA, in which case you must destroy all
    copies of the Product and all of its component parts.

[...]

19. The Product is protected by copyright and other intellectual
    property laws and treaties. Microsoft or its suppliers own
    the title, copyright, and other intellectual property
    rights in the Product.  The Product is licensed, not sold.

----

Well, of course when you buy it for example in retail (separately 
or in a bundle with a new computer), the "product" (copy) is sold. 
But the moment you agree to that contract (e.g. when installing 
and pressing something to manifest assent), you give up all your 
rights under 17 USC 109 and 117 (subject to local regulations 
regarding unfair contractual terms), and, to quote the FSF's 
brief in Wallace v. FSF "the contract controls".

BTW, given the set-in-stone FSF's stance on legal status of the 
GPL (everybody and his dog knows for certain that the GPL is a 
unilateral-permission-not-a-contract) I have no idea what 
contract the FSF hired lawyers in Indian are talking about. 

Hey mini-RMS, what do you think? C'mon share your thoughts on 
that.

regards,
alexander.