Johannes Wiedersich wrote:
I was just going to pass this over, but you have requested
that I reply, so I will.
[snip included stuff]
Mike, as I explained in another message, I used the software legally. If
I claimed that you did not have a license, and you state that you did
not. You used your employer's license, which, if you were doing work
for your employer, is quite proper. If you were doing your own work,
then you probably used it unlicensed. (I don't know the terms of
the license, so I can't speak with certainty.)
Here is an exact quote of where you state you did not have a license:
No, I used the licence of my employer (on the computer of my
> employer); after I went to a new employer, I couldn't use it any
> more.
[That is from another message.]
I would continue using the program on an other computer without paying
for a new licence, I would use it illegally, but I don't.
In Europe it is against the law to publicly make statements about others
that are not true. So, it's you who has broken the law.
I don't believe this at all. I am sure that it is against the law
in Europe to make malicious and untrue statements with intent to
harm. It's not against the law either to make mistakes or to state
something untrue, while holding the belief that it is true. If harm
results then it is a tort, not a crime, I'm sure. IANAL.
I consider it a strong offence of you to publicly claim that I would
have broken the law.
>
I would kindly ask you
- to clarify your statement on the list, and admit that you have no
evidence that I ever broke the law or any EULA etc.
I'll clarify my statements, but I don't think it will have the
effect you hope for.
- to stop spreading false information about me, including information
about me breaking the law/EULA in this special case.
Umm, IIRC, I made the statement that if you did what I understood
you to say AND you were working for a government you would have
committed a crime. That is a fact.
I also stated that since you were working for a company, then
if you did what I understood you to say you did it would be
a tort. That is also a fact.
What I understood you to say was that you used some proprietary
software on your employer's computer to create your *own* work.
Not doing your employer's work, your *own* work.
If that is not the case, then I suggest that you go back and
re-read what you wrote and see if it is not what you said.
For your convenience, I quote what you wrote verbatim:
I once couldn't read or view my old work after switching employer,
because I suddenly didn't have a licence for a certain program any
more and all work that was done with that program was more or less
lost. (Well, the lost part was not important enough to buy another
licence.)
You never had a license. If, as you say, you used it for your
own work, then you probably in effect used a pirate copy. I say
probably, because I don't know the terms of the license. If you
used it for your employer's work, then your employer owns the data,
not you. If your (previous) employer does not mind you having
a copy, then you should be able to work out a deal to have it
exported in a non-proprietary format for your own use. Since
you haven't done that, I suspect that you do not have any right
to the data as well.
Correct me where I am wrong. I'm just going by what you wrote.
If what you wrote is not what you meant, then clarify. If what
you wrote is what you meant, then point out any errors I have
made in understanding it.
Mike
--
p="p=%c%s%c;main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}";main(){printf(p,34,p,34);}
This message made from 100% recycled bits.
You have found the bank of Larn.
I can explain it for you, but I can't understand it for you.
I speak only for myself, and I am unanimous in that!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
