[ale] STORY LINK: Vendor slammed for 'selling' patches

[Bob Toxen]

On Thu, Apr 01, 2004 at 02:24:28PM -0700, Joe Knapka wrote:
> John Mills <johnmills at speakeasy.net> writes:

> > ALErs -

> > Whatever subsequent responsibilities of vendor to purchaser and vice-versa
> > should as a matter of good practice be agreed at the time of sale. (Will
> > anyone who thinks they understand Microsoft's EULA please stand up.  
> > Anyone??)

> Seems pretty straightforward. Paraphrased: "If we catch you using our
> software without paying for it, or giving it to others, we have the
> right to rape you, throw your family out in the street, kill your
> pets, and burn down your domicile.  If our software doesn't do what we
> say it does, you are screwed. So, heh heh, we pretty much get you
> either way."

In California, it is common for judges to throw out contracts that are
too one-sided as being unfair and "coerced".  I'm disappointed that this
has not happened with Microsoft's EULA and those of other software vendors.

> #include <ianal.h>

> -- Joe

> -- 
> Resist the feed.
> --
> If you really want to get my attention, send mail to
> jknapka .at. kneuro .dot. net.

Bob Toxen
bob at verysecurelinux.com               [Please use for email to me]
http://www.verysecurelinux.com        [Network&Linux/Unix security consulting]
http://www.realworldlinuxsecurity.com [My book:"Real World Linux Security 2/e"]
Quality Linux & UNIX security and SysAdmin & software consulting since 1990.

"Microsoft: Unsafe at any clock speed!"
   -- Bob Toxen 10/03/2002