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

[Kevin Wright]

...and lo, thus spake Bernd Felsche on 10/26/01:
>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.

This isn't about legality, it's about trust, and honor, which is 
obviously sadly lacking nowadays.

<snip>

>  > 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.

What's the point of a contract if you can just disregard the bits you 
don't like? Who defines 'onerous' and 'unreasonable'?
Are you sure that you're not a lawyer? It's attitudes like this that 
have screwed the legal system beyond recognition, and legal documents 
that have to go into infinite detail and precision. You *know* what 
the damned agreement means, regardless of the exact wording, why 
can't you just abide by that? Is it 'unreasonable' to expect an 
intelligent person to understand what is meant by the EULA?

>  > 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.

Depends on whether the government of the store and customer allows 
such exchanges, doesn't it? It's unreasonable to *you*, but what 
about the authorities in the location (and, by extension, the people)?
Even if you go by majority rules, it looks like the majority here 
think that Peter is a snake as well...
Just saying 'that's unreasonable' doesn't make it so. The world works 
on consensus.
-- 
Kevin Wright
krwright at wankel.net
krwright at ev1.net
http://www.wankel.net/~krwright

If men can run the world, why can't
they stop wearing neckties?
How intelligent is it to start the day
by tying a noose around your neck?
-Linda Ellerbee-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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