3 ms·
Well, then you don't agree to it. > I cannot modify the software? Why not? To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions. Also, the "cannot modi
by latitude 13y ago
Well, then you don't agree to it.
> I cannot modify the software? Why not?
To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions.
Also, the "cannot modify" clause is a weaker version of a universally used "You shall not decompile or reverse-engineerthe software", which is also frequently coupled with "You will not try and defeat, deactivate, bypass, remove or otherwise circumvent any software protection mechanisms". I don't think it makes much practical sense, but this is an industry standard. Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this way.
- betterunix 13y ago"> I cannot modify the software? Why not? To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions." Then why not just say that? Why not just say, "No support shall be provided if the software has been modified without authorization?" "I don't think it makes much practical sense, but this is an industry standard. Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this way." Yes, well, when I said that I would not agree to it, I meant it -- because I do not agree to proprietary licenses with such terms (i.e. I do not use proprietary software).