Subject: Re: Licenses for "Running"
From: Adam Theo <>
Date: Wed, 6 Jun 2001 13:49:41 -0400

Ian Lance Taylor <>:
    My understanding is that it is unclear whether EULA are legally
    enforceable in the U.S.  My vague recollection is that one case said
    they were valid, and several cases said they were not.  The UCITA,
    which has been passed in two or three states, says that they are
    valid.  Most people act as though they are valid.  Microsoft certainly
    does, although it generally uses market pressure rather than legal
    pressure to enforce its licenses.

oh, ok. i didn't mean to use Microsoft specifically. i didn't know
about EULA's. so, re-read my post, substituting 'Microsoft' for some
other software development company you know of that uses Copyright
Licenses instead of EULA's. thanks! wow, learning alot today!   :)

so, it can basically be said that although 'Usage Licenses' exist
(those EULA's), the only 'sure-fire' way of managing what happens to
your published code is using Copyright Liceses, since EULA's are not
well defined in the court system here in the U.S.? they are a grey
zone for now?

hm... so right now, for software (or other electronic media) there are
'Copyright Licenses' (such as proprietary licenses and the GPL, etc.),
and 'Usage Licenses' (the various EULA's used by microsoft and

is there a website where i can learn more about EULA's in general?

thanks all.
   /\    --- Adam Theo ---
  //\\   Theoretic Solutions (
 /____\     Software, Politics, and Advocacy
/--||--\ email:   AIM: Adam Theo 2000
   ||    jabber:   ICQ: 3617306
   ||  "Did you ever get the feeling the world was a tuxedo,
   ||     and you were a pair of brown shoes?"