I have never believed the EULA restrictions would be enforceable in court in the EC. First because its a contract of adhesion. Second because it may say its a license not a purchase, but if it walks and quacks like a purchase that is what the courts will hold it to be, and then you can do what you like with it. Third because it breaches consumer protection legislation, like making the conditions of purchase clear before you buy. Fourth because post sale restrictions on use are anti-competitive. See the auto aftermarket, a manufacturer cannot tell you what parts to use as a condition of purchase. Fourth because if you actually sell the product separately, its going to be a linked sale, and that is frowned on.
I similarly don't believe MS would ever have been able to enforce the restriction on VMs. I do believe copyright restrictions will be enforceable, and that is what sunk Psystar - unauthorised copying for installation on more than one machine. Not on. If they had bought one copy and installed it on each machine, maybe. But they'd have made a loss on every one. But, I am not a lawyer, so this is just a lay opinion, use at own peril. Yes, this was the whole point of replacing bios in the way that its being replaced. Lockdown the machine. Maybe not the starting out idea, but how its ended up. Following the Apple example. Not so much enemies of promise, more enemies of freedom. Peter -- View this message in context: http://runtime-revolution.278305.n4.nabble.com/OT-EULA-and-legality-tp4654675p4654679.html Sent from the Revolution - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com. _______________________________________________ use-livecode mailing list use-livecode@lists.runrev.com Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences: http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
