3 ms·

I don't really buy into the software licensing bs--it was forced on us without any choices. It is the worst kind of legal bs there is. "You paid for this but

I don't really buy into the software licensing bs--it was forced on us without any choices. It is the worst kind of legal bs there is. "You paid for this but you have no rights to it." Uh, yeah, keep thinking that.

ovao 10y ago
A Tesla is not forced upon you, however. If you're wary of the terms, do not buy a Tesla car. Software has, by the way, always* been this way. I've been "buying software" for twenty years and I've never actually not gotten a license with it rather than the software itself, with all ownership rights conferred to me. *within the scope of my knowledge and experience
toomuchtodo 10y ago
You don't have to buy into a law for it to exist and be enforced. And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.
- Retra 10y ago
  And slave owners are the ones who allowed slaves to eat. That's not an argument that slaves should not fight for their freedom. Your income is physically earned, not 'allowed' to you by insidious and underhanded legal means.
  - toomuchtodo 10y ago
    Comparing a EULA or software ownership to slavery is such an excellent example of technologists being out of touch with the rest of humanity.
    - Smaug123 10y ago
      Presumably you're aware that comparing one thing to another does not imply that the GP thinks they are anywhere near equivalent. The common meaning of the word "comparable" is not "can be compared", but "roughly equivalent". You are acting as though GP considers them comparable-in-the-second-sense; GP's post actually claims them to be comparable-in-the-first-sense.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  I'm pretty sure if first sale doctrine applied to software, almost nothing would change. We're not talking about getting rid of copyright, just the idea that this thing that acts almost exactly like a purchase is not 'really' a purchase.
- teddyh 10y ago
  > And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income. So what you’re saying is that just because his salary depends upon his not understanding the arguments for this to be “legal bs”, he therefore should voluntarily choose to abstain from understanding them? Upton Sinclair would turn in his grave.

ovao 10y ago

A Tesla is not forced upon you, however. If you're wary of the terms, do not buy a Tesla car. Software has, by the way, always* been this way. I've been "buying software" for twenty years and I've never actually not gotten a license with it rather than the software itself, with all ownership rights conferred to me. *within the scope of my knowledge and experience

toomuchtodo 10y ago

You don't have to buy into a law for it to exist and be enforced. And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income.

Retra 10y ago
And slave owners are the ones who allowed slaves to eat. That's not an argument that slaves should not fight for their freedom. Your income is physically earned, not 'allowed' to you by insidious and underhanded legal means.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  Comparing a EULA or software ownership to slavery is such an excellent example of technologists being out of touch with the rest of humanity.
  - Smaug123 10y ago
    Presumably you're aware that comparing one thing to another does not imply that the GP thinks they are anywhere near equivalent. The common meaning of the word "comparable" is not "can be compared", but "roughly equivalent". You are acting as though GP considers them comparable-in-the-second-sense; GP's post actually claims them to be comparable-in-the-first-sense.
Dylan16807 10y ago
I'm pretty sure if first sale doctrine applied to software, almost nothing would change. We're not talking about getting rid of copyright, just the idea that this thing that acts almost exactly like a purchase is not 'really' a purchase.
teddyh 10y ago
> And if you're in the tech industry, that "legal bs" is what allows you to have an income. So what you’re saying is that just because his salary depends upon his not understanding the arguments for this to be “legal bs”, he therefore should voluntarily choose to abstain from understanding them? Upton Sinclair would turn in his grave.