Oz WB PCBs - now available - Or how I screwed the list

[Bernd Felsche]

Brian L Massey tapped away at the keyboard with:
> On Thu, 25 Oct 2001 16:36:04 +0800 (WST) Bernd Felsche
> <bernie at innovative.iinet.net.au> writes:
> 
> > GPL doesn't demand that derivative works be covered by GPL. Only
> > that the end user be given access to, or directed to the original
> > GPL's content.
> 
> A so-what. Already been stated numerous times that the diyWB EULA
> isn't modeled after the GPL. The key point is, even the GPL has
> restrictions/requirements that you have to agree to, or you don't
> have authorization to make use of the thing. As to your retort
> that you don't think the diyWB agreement is 'reasonable', where do
> you see even in the GPL that if you think *its* provisions are
> unreasonable, you can simple ignore them??

They are not binding in a legal sense if the agreement makes
unreasonable impositions on either party.

> > Only as far as is _reasonable.
> 
> Not really. If you consider a particular license agreement as
> unreasonable, feel free to opt out. That's your available choice,
> not blowing off the agreement because you feel it's not
> 'reasonable'. If you can't abide by the terms of an agreement,
> then you are simply stating you can't be a part of the exchange.

O.K.; I did ask on the list (check the archives). The feedback I got
was that I didn't have to advise the GMECM list because it was
recognized as being an unreasonable requirement for a non-subscriber
to that list.

Clean up the agreement.  It will not diminish the rights that can be
legally enforced (by Copyright for example) although stating that
"It is in the public domain" may null what you can get as you've
actively relinquished all rights. There's no need to _remove_ what's
on the "wish list"; it's more a matter of relaxing the compulsion to
a moral obligation. That will make the onerous bearable, and the
unreasonable at least understandable.

Don't use the phrase "public domain" unless you REALLY mean it. 
It was probably not what you meant, judging by the accompanying
"conditions".

> You and Peter or whomever, have every right and opportunity to
> label a particular agreement as either 'unreasonable' or
> 'onerous', and argue for its modification, but that does *not*
> give you the right to take the goods and blow off its conditions.

The "goods" are still there, aren't they. The right to disregard
unreasonable clauses in any contract is defined by law in most
countries. Some countries void the entire contract; others merely
strike the onerous and unreasonable clauses.

> Let me apply the 'shoplifting' analogy for you high-brow types
> again. If you go into a store and see something you like, but
> consider it overpriced, that doesn't give you any justification to
> poach it. You can try to negotiate a better price (conditions of
> the agreement more to your liking), or whine at the top of your
> lungs that the requirements imposed are not 'reasonable', but your
> *one* choice is to pass on by the goods.

The shoplifting analogy is far too simplistic. First; theft denies
ownership of a physical artifact from the rightful owner. Second, if
a _customer_ procreates having fed himself on the paid bounty of the
shop, then that progeny doesn't belong to the shop keeper, no matter
what the sign says beside the door.

The latter is the unreasonable part of the agreement.

-- 
 /"\  Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
 \ /      ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!       |
  X       against HTML mail     | Copy me into your ~/.signature|
 / \      and postings          | to help me spread!            |
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org