Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, Apr 30, 2004 at 05:56:15PM +0100, Henning Makholm wrote: > > Scripsit Jakob Bohm <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > > The term "under your direct control" typically does not refer to > > > physical access or knowledge of the root password etc., it > > > usually refers to "under your [licensee as legal entity] direct > > > [legal] control", that is any computer that the licensee (which > > > may be a person, company, organisation etc.) has the *legal* > > > command over, typically by owning, renting, leasing, borrowing, > > > getting as sponsorship etc. > > > > That's even worse. It means that the license is trying to say that I'm > > not allowed to install the software on my neighbour's computer, which I > > have no legal control over, even if my neighbourt asks me to help him. > > > > Beware that the following is a bit speculative, IANAL, TINLA, > IANADD. > > No, that's not my understanding, my understanding is that if you > install it on your neighbour's computer, then it is your > neighbor that needs to follow the license, not you. And if you > brought the copy to the party then you are actually doing two > steps: distribute to your neighbor, then install on behalf of > your neighbor, which is a very common situation typically > addressed by this very phrase.
Yes, that is the way it seems to me. I still do not see a comprehensible objection to this sentence. There is a difference between rights given to an end user, and rights given to a distributor. Under Squeak-L there are broad provisions for both kinds of people, but you get more permissions so long as you are acting like an end user instead of a distributor. Are there still any people who think this sentence is a problem? I would like to mark this sub-issue as closed. -Lex
