-----Original Message-----
From:
plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
[
mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Craig
White
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2004 12:49 PM
To:
plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
Subject: Re: No Question with practical and ethical considerations.
On Tue, 2004-12-21 at 09:06 -0700, Bill Wesson wrote:
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> [mailto:plug-discuss-admin@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us] On Behalf Of Craig
> White
> Sent: Monday, December 20, 2004 5:40 PM
> To: plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> Subject: RE: Question with practical and ethical considerations.
>
> On Mon, 2004-12-20 at 12:42 -0700, Bill Wesson wrote:
>
> > Given that I own a valid XP pro license, installed on the same box that
> > I run Redhat on, is there a practical method of having rdesktop announce
> > itself as either windows 2k pro or XP pro to the server.
> >
> > If there is a practical way to do this, where does it stand legally and
> > ethically.
> ----
> legally - Unless someone is a lawyer and is familiar with the specific
> language of the license to which you are referring, all you could hope
> to get is misinformed legal advice. This is pointless
>
> morally - I think you have answered the issue of morality since you feel
> that the fact that the computer that you are using has a Windows 2000
> license affixed to the computer itself and that in your mind should
> trump the details of the license which is in question. Personally, I
> have no problems with that and if 'management' who owns the server whose
> license is at issue has no problems with it, then go for it.
----
> Craig,
>
> I don't think a person needs to be lawyer to read a Microsoft license*.
> However, the person needs to be of average intelligence and willing to
take
> the time to read the document.
---
perhaps but for the most part, these things are written by lawyers in a
technical jargon, some of the granular issues are not likely to be
understood by everyone but surely the average person should be able to
get the ideas presented.
---
>
> Now, it is just plain bad advice to suggest someone potentially violate a
> license agreement just because management is ignorant, unread, or
unwilling
> to face their obligations under a software licensing agreement. That
advice
> could lead an individual to be personally financially responsible for
their
> action of violating a software licensing agreement. There is no protection
> violating the law by saying your employer made you do it.
---
1 - The liability is inured by the employer who owns the equipment.
There is no liability to the person if his employer felt it was proper.
2 - You are insinuating that I gave the suggestion to potentially
violate a license agreement. I agreed (a personal opinion) to the notion
that using a computer which had a valid license affixed to it (Windows
2000) but booting Linux at the moment, that a reasonable case for it
representing a valid license could be made and I am confident that
Microsoft would never prosecute that action as a license violation. I
would love to see Microsoft prosecute such an action but know that they
would have too little to gain and too much to lose to ever pursue it.
3 - There is no protection from violating the law even if my lawyer says
it's ok to do it, forgetting for the moment, my employers advisement.
There is no protection anywhere. I think the overriding determination
always has to come down to... is it fair? is it reasonable?
---
> I refuse to refer certain matters to an attorney when my own study of law
as
> a citizen and my study of English is pretty good. For the matters that I
> have not taken time to study to become proficient at, I would refer to an
> attorney. So you won't see from me, a home drawn will or trust, for
> instance.
---
actually, home wills and trusts are comparatively simple documents and
wouldn't require much study. IP law is extremely technical and
ferociously litigated.
---
> *I was at a company where Microsoft's own legal department wouldn't give a
> straight answer on a licensing ambiguity. In that case, the only thing you
> can do is buy protection in an attorney's letter of legal opinion.
---
I'm not sure that you can ever 'get a straight answer' when it comes to
licensing ambiguity and of course, even if you get the benefit of a
competent opinion from an attorney, it neither protects you from lawsuit
nor damages. The decisions are always left to user which in a corporate
environment, is the corporation.
Here's an real IP conundrum. Let's say I purchased a music CD and
duplicated it onto a blank CD for using in my car. I consider this to be
fair use since if I am listening to it in my car, it's not playing at
home or vice versa. Someone breaks into my car and steals the copy. Am I
obligated to throw the original away?
Thanks
Craig
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I think we're on the same page here.
1) Whether you have an attorney's opinion or not, you cannot violate the
law.
2) Possession of Windows XP does not give you a license to use RDP on a
Windows 200x server. Legally, only a proper terminal services license can
give a user RDP access to a Windows 200x server.
3) Having a Windows XP license does not give you a license to run RDP on any
Linux computer including a dual-boot computer.
4) Possessing a RDP Terminal Services client license for the server however
does (I think) give you the right to connect to the server from any RDP
client including a Linux computer whether you have a Windows XP license or
not.
5) <snip> even if you get the benefit of a competent opinion from an
attorney, it neither protects you from lawsuit nor damages.</snip> Virtually
all attorneys carry malpractice insurance which can be sued for (wisely or
unwisely) if you are 'injured' by an attorney's advice.
Shall we do what is legally correct even if it unjust and unfair, or what we
won't get prosecuted/sued for?
Thanks,
--Bill Wesson
---------------------------------------------------
PLUG-discuss mailing list -
PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change you mail settings:
http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
(text/plain)