VMWare / Wine

[Jeffrey F. Bloss]

Michael R. Head wrote:

> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 10:57 -0500, Jeffrey F. Bloss wrote:
> > Derek Broughton wrote:
> > 
> > In short, if a piece of software lists "Microsoft Windows xxxx" as a
> > requirement, like almost every piece of Windows software does, it
> > implies a *legally owned* copy of that software. It doesn't even
> > have to be installed, IOW Wine is "legal" (the reason the topic
> > came up), but to run almost any Windows software legally requires
> > ownership of a Microsoft Windows license more current than Windows
> > 95... for a couple reasons that have to do with Microsoft's EULA
> > changes starting with Windows 98.
> 
> I don't think I buy this argument (without a snippet of a EULA from
> some third party software that explicitly states that it is required
> to run on Windows). 

The requirement itself is plain and obvious, starting with the box the
software comes in or the "requirements" section of any online
counterpart to physical packaging. 

The EULA reference has more to do with "one machine, one copy"
philosophy which precludes a single license from being "shared".

> Certainly the any warranties and guarantees
> (which were shaky in the first place) go out the window (so to speak)

Absolutely. The entire industry is built on the tenuous premise of
offering tangible support for, and applying tangible rules to, an
intangible product. That leads to all sorts of strangeness.

> when running on a non-Microsoft version of Windows, but simply

There are no non-Microsoft versions of Windows. There is only one
product named "Windows", and it belongs to Microsoft. If you doubt that
you're free to create your own custom Linux distribution for example,
and give it that moniker. ;)

The thing is, even if you got away with using "Windows" or found some
previously unknown software of that name put out by ACME Software, the
packaging and requirements in question always call out some specific
version information, almost always include the word "Microsoft", and
usually have a copy of the stupid "flying window" logo or whatever
Microsoft is using these days.

To suggest that "Windows software" doesn't technically require a
Microsoft licensed product is a bit of a stretch to say the least in my
opinion.

> specifying on the box that a program requires (or, more to the point
> _specifies_) windows doesn't strike me as having any legal force
> requiring a Microsoft implementation of that
> specification/requirement. 
> 
> Even if the EULA of a third party piece of software claims that it
> requires Windows, I'd still not be totally convinced as EULAs are
> notoriously weak.
> 

Another matter entirely. As one of my legal pals also also said...
"Jeff, I agree with you but in the end it all boils down to whether or
not you can convince a jury you're right and the other guy is wrong".

That particular statement was made during a conversation regarding
firearms in schools after a teacher at a school function very close to
where I use to live "subdued" an armed student with his own weapon.
Famous Western Pennsylvania incident. You may have heard about it. I
knew the teacher in question casually. He was never charged with any
crime although many people thought he had broken the law.

It's a common misconception that "school zone" gun legislation prohibits
firearms, specifically handguns, on school property. In fact almost
every one of these laws is written to say "weapon" to cover things like
knives and "dual use" items like tire irons and baseball bats when
they're used offensively. They also invariably include exemptions for
school sanctioned shooting sports and... "other lawful purposes".
Typically in those exact words.

By definition self defense is a "lawful purpose" for carrying a
concealed handgun. In many places it's the *only* lawful purpose. That
technically makes packin' heat in a school "legal" in most US
States at least, and probably any other jurisdiction that has a
registration or licensing process for concealed carry and similar
restrictions. Thus the "no guns allowed in school" notion crumbles. As
long as you can convince 12 people your logic is flawless that is. ;-)

All of which has absolutely nothing at all to do with software law
except this... 99% of what's being discussed revolves around intent and
presumption, which obviously weighs heavily in favor of Microsoft no
matter how you or I feel about it, or how many pick-able nits we
come up with. Simple facts are... there's only one "Windows", Windows
software *obviously* requires it, and trying to convince 12 people
otherwise would likely be even more pointless than trying to convince
the same 12 people that a gun found in your pocket at school was
perfectly legal. ;)

-- 
     _?_      Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend.
    (o o)         Inside of a dog, it's too dark to read.
-oOO-(_)--OOo------------------------------[ Groucho Marx ]---
                    http://wrench.homelinux.net/~jeff/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 892 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-users/attachments/20070224/a83f914a/attachment.sig>