Robert Newson wrote:
> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
> > http://linuxadvocate.org/articles.php?p=1
> ``3. You have only the rights granted in this EULA. You do not have the
> right to do anything with Windows XP Home not covered by this EULA.''
> ``4. Software developers cannot attempt to figure out how Windows XP Home
> works for any reason.''
> Surely 4. is unnecessary as 3 explicitly states that anything not granted in
> the EULA you don't have and as the EULA doesn't grant reverse engineering
> anywhere (in 4. it is explicitly /not/ granted) you can't do it?
> Or is 3. actually incorrect in that there /are/ rights you have which are
> /not/ explicitly stated in the EULA /and/ the EULA can't take away (by not
> explicitly granting them - as required by 3.). Thus 3. is void?
> Looking at the original for 3.:
> ``...The Software is licensed, not sold.''
> must remember that for complaining at the next set of adverts I see which
> state that I can now /buy/ Windwos - the adverts are misleading as you can't
> /buy/ Windows, you only buy a /licence/ for the use of it.
> I wonder if by this they get round the "fit for purpose" criteria of
> products - you don't buy the product, only a licence to use the product, and
> the licence /is/ [vaguely] fit for /that/ purpose.
I have noticed that MS doesn't really advertise their software for any
purpose. They give the impression of great things you can do with it,
but mostly it is a "Joe Camel" style of message. You will be cool, or
an office hero, or something, but not "Office is for" anything.