[PL] PL2005 Ware Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter Susan Bugher
  • Start date Start date
I have not found any separate EULA for IE and OE.
Click to expand...

For the Windows OS, there is not a separate licence for IE/OE; the OS
licence, which must be bought, /is/ the IE/OE licence. With the IE/OE
download, there comes a supplemental licence which re-binds the new
software ("OS components", all of it) to the licence for the rest of
the OS.
So AFAIK I can tell, OE can only be considered free if you have a
valid Windows license.
Click to expand...

Just as any other component of the OS could be considered freeware once
you've bought a licence for the whole thing. ;)
 
"B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson" <[email protected]>
wrote in said:
The license for Mac is a bit different:

| Microsoft grants you the right to install and use copies of the
| SOFTWARE PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed
| copies of the operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT
| was designed (e.g., Windows(r) 95; Windows NT(r), Windows 3.x,
| Macintosh, etc.).
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting this. In the recent discussions (which I guess
prompted OE being added to the ware issues thread), nobody had a copy
of the EULA for Apple users.
 
Trillian - nagware?
Click to expand...

I was the one who confirmed that Trillian had a particularly annoying
nag window. I saw it many many many times in 2003, but I have not seen
it this year. I think was a minor version bump, and I think they must
have removed the nag screen. Early this year, I installed the latest
Trillian on a new Win98 partition, and I have used it in the same way
that prompted the nags before, but no nags have appeared yet.

Is there a way to tell how many hours Trillian has been used? I only
knew how many before because the nag screen made a point of telling me.

IIRC, no one else here claimed ever to have gotten the nags. Has
anyone seen them since it was discussed last year?

FWIW, here's a screen capture of one of them:
<http://www.cotse.net/users/putty/images/trilliannag.png>
 
»Q« said:
For the Windows OS, there is not a separate licence for IE/OE; the OS
licence, which must be bought, /is/ the IE/OE licence. With the IE/OE
download, there comes a supplemental licence which re-binds the new
software ("OS components", all of it) to the licence for the rest of
the OS.
Click to expand...

And how does this disqualify it as freeware? Wait... don't bother
answering that. I'm not in the mood to get into a long, drawn out
discussion which, in the end, will have swayed no one's opinion.
Just as any other component of the OS could be considered freeware
once you've bought a licence for the whole thing. ;)
Click to expand...

I figured this would happen when it suddenly dawned on a few people here
that the cherished Pricelessware list had been "tainted" with such a
"despised" Microsoft program. It's sad, really, that such a fine program
is so hated by relatively few, but vocal, people.

So, if anyone here wants to see Outlook Express remain as a nomination
they should speak up. I don't have anything else to say about it,
currently.
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:
| Microsoft grants you the right to install and use copies of the SOFTWARE
| PRODUCT on your computers running validly licensed copies of the
| operating system for which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed (e.g.,
| Windows(r) 95; Windows NT(r), Windows 3.x, Macintosh, etc.).

Although the statement itself is silly, it makes this version freeware
on Mac. (Notwithstanding the fact that it still can't be used on a Mac
Emulator - IMHO.)
Click to expand...

You can run Linux on a Mac, just like you can run it on a PC, so IMNSHO
it's exactly the same as on Windows: no freeware...
 
Ben Cooper schreef:
And how does this disqualify it as freeware? Wait... don't bother
answering that. I'm not in the mood to get into a long, drawn out
discussion which, in the end, will have swayed no one's opinion.
Click to expand...

Can I use IE or OE on ReactOS or Linux+WINE if I want that? No, I'm not
allowed to do that, according to the license, even if or when it *is*
possible to do that...

From the a.c.f "freeware" definition (emphasis added by me):
"Freeware:
Software that is licensed to the end user free of charge. IT IS NOT
feature disabled, time limited or RESTRICTED IN ANY WAY. [...]"
 
Susan Bugher schreef:
Outlook Express - not Freeware?
Click to expand...

Like I wrote earlier in this thread: when one compares the portions from
the EULAs posted in this thread with the a.c.f definition of freeware,
then it's no freeware by definition...
 
And how does this disqualify it as freeware?
Click to expand...

If you have to buy a piece of software's licence in order to use it,
that piece of software is not freeware. You have to buy IE/OE's
licence in order to use it.
Wait... don't bother answering that.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I couldn't let it just stand as a rhetorical question.
I'm not in the mood to get into a long, drawn out discussion
which, in the end, will have swayed no one's opinion.
Click to expand...

Me neither.
I figured this would happen when it suddenly dawned on a few
people here that the cherished Pricelessware list had been
"tainted" with such a "despised" Microsoft program. It's sad,
really, that such a fine program is so hated by relatively few,
but vocal, people.
Click to expand...

I'm not a fan of OE, but that has nothing to do with whether or not
it's freeware. I like and use Trillian, but last year I lobbied to
have it disqualified because it was nagware. Whether or not anyone
likes OE, Trillian, or any other app has nothing to do with deciding
whether or not that app is freeware.
So, if anyone here wants to see Outlook Express remain as a
nomination they should speak up.
Click to expand...

If they have some as yet unheard argument supporting the idea that
IE/OE is freeware, indeed they should speak up.
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:


You can run Linux on a Mac, just like you can run it on a PC, so IMNSHO
it's exactly the same as on Windows: no freeware...
Click to expand...

Um. No. It doesn't matter if you can run Linux on Mac. We are talking
about running the OS-whatsever-version (can't use X as a placeholder
here ;-) ) of OE on a Macintosh. You would do this on the Mac system
and *not* on the Linux OS. The MS OE licence only wants you to have a
correct licensed version of Mac-OS while running on *this* OS. Even the
Unix based versions (see Panther) are permitted. Excluded are emulators.
These are (in a very strict sense) not the 'operating systems' for which
OE was designed. You can't even run the Mac version on a Mac emulator
on a PC when you have a valid license for Windows and use a licensed
Mac Boot ROM inside the emulator. Still you're free to use it on all
your Macintosh computers.

That's why: Freeware on Mac. It is not the 'best kind' of freeware. The
'best' in all scents of 'free' would probably open source 'public domain'
programs with no other statements regarding license restrictions. (I use
the parentheses *on purpose* because I don't rank many other license
forms less!) But although there are many programs of this kind available
it would do no good to limit freeware to these conditions. Often used is
the restriction to home use. These programs are still regarded freeware
for home users. *Very* seldom is the exclusion of usage on emulators. I
myself regard such a program still freeware on the native OS.

Another thought:

I think the licence of MS to be silly, because it is nonsense to believe
some court would grant MS a reimbursement if one would use OE (violating
the license agreement) on a computer with stolen OS version. Apple would
get its rights, anyway. Its a bit the same as if MS would deprive users
of the right to use OE on a stolen computer. - It just doesn't matter.
The relevant case would be handled totally independent.

Besides: There was a Unix version of OE 4.0 available (around 1998).
(Look for articles by David Brooks, who was a leading member of the
Microsoft IE/OE UNIX team.)

BeAr
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:
Um. No. It doesn't matter if you can run Linux on Mac. We are talking
about running the OS-whatsever-version (can't use X as a placeholder
here ;-) ) of OE on a Macintosh. You would do this on the Mac system
and *not* on the Linux OS. The MS OE licence only wants you to have a
correct licensed version of Mac-OS while running on *this* OS.
Click to expand...

What if I have a Mac without a valid Mac OS X license?
(That's far from impossible, Apple has sold _thousands_ of XServes without
a Mac OS X license, and some older PPC Macs still run Mac OS 9...)

It's also possible to remove Mac OS X (the EULA says the OS must be
running: "running validly licensed copies of the operating system for
which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed").

What if someone writes a Cocoa API emulator for PPC Linux?
(Something like WINE but mimicking Mac OS X APIs)

Running OE for Mac OS X on this *Mac* would be illegal.
That's why: Freeware on Mac.
Click to expand...

No it's not.
It's only freeware on a Mac-that-you-are running-Apple's-Mac-OS-X-on.

Besides: There was a Unix version of OE 4.0 available (around 1998).
Click to expand...

I know. There once was an IE version for unix too.
But that has nothing to do with the licenses of _current_ versions...
 
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 05:11:16 GMT, JanC wrote:

[OE for Mac]
What if I have a Mac without a valid Mac OS X license?
Click to expand...

You can't execute a Mac OS X program if you don't have this BS running.
If you have an illegal copy of Mac OS X: You can't base rights on
illegitimacy. That's why it is of no use to think about the *ware
status of user programs running on this BS, at all.

Emulators are a special case. And - as I said before - *I* don't deny
a freeware author the right to restrict usage for certain delimited
areas of usage (no business, no emulator, no MS employees, and so on).
(That's far from impossible, Apple has sold _thousands_ of XServes without
a Mac OS X license, and some older PPC Macs still run Mac OS 9...)
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter. You have or have not a valid license for a BS where
a freeware version of OE exists.
It's also possible to remove Mac OS X (the EULA says the OS must be
running: "running validly licensed copies of the operating system for
which the SOFTWARE PRODUCT was designed").
Click to expand...

You can't run the Mac OS X version without running Mac OS X. If you
install (rightful!) another OS - then you can use the OE version for
*this* OS (if there is a free one available).
What if someone writes a Cocoa API emulator for PPC Linux?
(Something like WINE but mimicking Mac OS X APIs)

Running OE for Mac OS X on this *Mac* would be illegal.
Click to expand...

You can't use it there; because of the restrictions of the license.
But as I said: that doesn't break the freeware status, IMHO.
No it's not.
It's only freeware on a Mac-that-you-are running-Apple's-Mac-OS-X-on.
Click to expand...

A freeware for WinNT systems continues to be freeware although it
maybe won't run with Win9x.
I know. There once was an IE version for unix too.
But that has nothing to do with the licenses of _current_ versions...
Click to expand...

But it shows that you could even run *a* freeware version of OE on
unix systems. It's just abandonware, there.

BeAr
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:
*I* don't deny a freeware author the right to restrict usage for
certain delimited areas of usage
Click to expand...

There is a definition of "freeware" for a.c.f/pricelessware which says "no
restrictions on usage". Your (or my!) opinion doesn't matter until
there's an a.c.f vote to change that definition.
 
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:


There is a definition of "freeware" for a.c.f/pricelessware which says "no
restrictions on usage". Your (or my!) opinion doesn't matter until
there's an a.c.f vote to change that definition.
Click to expand...

The 'definition' of freeware is nothing we *ever* could fully agree in
acf. You snipped my samples. These had one thing in common: An average
home user could use the programs on the OS, the programs where developed
for, *without any restrictions*.

But we both have expressed our POV very detailed. And I don't expect
one of us change minds (at least in near future). That's why we should
agree to disagree, shouldn't we?

BeAr
 
I nominate or second the following programs:

40tude Dialog (#0009-PW)
7-Zip (#0011-PW)
Ad-Aware (#0029-PW)
Add/Remove Pro (#0032-PW)
Agnitum Outpost Firewall (Free) (#0036-PW)
ArtRage (#1119)
Audacity (#0069-PW)
avast! (#0897-PW)
AVG Anti-Virus System (#0023-PW)
Burnatonce (#0105-PW)
Buttonz &amp; Tilez! (#0106-PW)
CDCheck (#0108-PW)
Crimson Editor (#0169-PW)
CutePDF Writer (was CutePDF Printer) (#0177-PW)
DAEMON Tools (#0181-PW)
EasyCleaner (#0236-PW)
Eraser (#0250-PW)
Exact Audio Copy (EAC) (#0254-PW)
FileZilla (#0281-PW)
FoxMail (#0293-PW)
Irfanview (#0391-PW)
IZArc (#0365-PW)
JPEG Cleaner (#0397-PW)
LAME (#0416-PW)
LeechGet (#0423-PW)
Miranda IM (#0462-PW)
Mozilla (#0471-PW)
Mozilla Firefox (was Mozilla Firebird) (was Phoenix) (#0473-PW)
MP3Gain (#0434-PW)
MPEG Audio Collection (MAC) (#0436-PW)
OpenOffice.org (#0520-PW)
Partition Saving (was Savepart) (#0547-PW)
PhotoFiltre (#2286)
Ranish Partition Manager (#0615-PW)
Spybot Search &amp; Destroy (#0710-PW)
TMPGEnc (#0748-PW)
Ulead Gif Animator (#0799-PW)
VirtualDub (#0812-PW)
WinAmp Classic (#0844-PW)
Windows Ultimate Boot CD (#3476)
ZipGenius (#0889-PW)
 
Francesco said:
In data Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:22:37 GMT, Francesco ha scritto:

I nominate or second the following programs:

[CUT]
Click to expand...


Sorry, I posted to the wrong post :-(
Click to expand...

S'okay. Please repost in the "[PL] PL2005 Nominations" thread though -
just to keep the record straight. TIA :)

Susan
 
JanC said:
B. R. 'BeAr' Ederson schreef:


There is a definition of "freeware" for a.c.f/pricelessware which
says "no restrictions on usage". Your (or my!) opinion doesn't
matter until there's an a.c.f vote to change that definition.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this is something which (yet again) needs to be addressed.
According to "alt.comp.freeware's Ware Glossary", which I assume has
passed earlier scrutiny by those who are concerned, states-
"Freeware: Legally obtainable software that you may use at no cost,
monetary or otherwise, for as long as you wish."

Of course, this can be interpreted any number of ways.
Outlook Express is legally obtainable, I can use it at no cost (which I
define as no cost beyond that hardware and software I've chosen to use),
and I can use it as long as *I wish*.

I suppose the real bugbear is the part where it says, "monetary or
otherwise".

How detailed a debate does any one want to engage just to dispose of a
Microsoft product, which shares equal merit against any other program in
its classification?
 
Back
Top