Using my Windows XP cd on my other PC?

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: grunjee

Originally posted by: Nothinman
Some of us do have morals and try to keep their software use legal.

That is truly noble of you, but what about MS having some morals? I see very little of a sense of morals in their EULA schemes.

Tell them this, not us.

It's their code, they worked hard to develop their products. They deserve to make money for their work. No one should pirate their stuff. Simple enough, right?

Yep, Im not sure why this is debated all the time.

MS complicates things by using monopolistic, strong-arm, bully tactics. Such as the OEM EULA terms referred to earlier. Common sense tells you that's wrong.

But people continue to fall for it, our government is letting them get away with it, and no one is asking for restitution. Seems fine to me.

Common sense also tells you that sure, you don't own the software, but when you shell out $200-300 you sure as hell have a right to use it in a practical way.

Practical does not mean in any way you want.

MS has the power to set the terms, but that doesn't make their terms right or moral. MS rapes a lot of people with their EULA terms and that to me is dispicable.

Cry me a river.

In some ways I see MS as a communist entity.

Communist in that everyone is equal and no one should have more than another even if they work harder comrad? Or do you mean communist in the hippie sense where everyone gets an equal share even if they dont wory as hard as someone else? Or do you mean the evil group definition of the communist?

If you support a communist entity, even if it's your homeland, are you doing the morally correct thing? You can judge for yourself. Supporting something immoral, to me, doesn't make you moral -- it simply perpetuates the immorality.

Exactly (except for your non-sensical mention of communist, I look forward to some clarification)! And everyone that pirates or even uses Windows is supporting Microsoft. Yes, pirating their software gives them support. By using it, you create demand for other software (games, etc) to be created for that platform. This gives Microsoft another source of revenue (compilers/dev tools and whatnot) and another sheep for the slaughter house. Even if you pirate the other software you use, you are supporting them. Surprise! This is the secret. You learn their software, be it stolen or legit, and only their software you have just royally screwed yourself. Yes, yourself. By this amazing and slightly horrifying act of contortion, you have managed to *gasp* lock yourself into one vendor, and you are at their mercy. Why you might ask? Partly because getting out of positions like that by yourself is tough, and partially because of that big scary thing called work. Getting away with stealing $32,000USD in sofware is easy when you are an individual, but when you are a corporation and there are 3 more 0s at the end of that So you only know one OS. And you need to find a solution for this big contract. Where are you going to look? Not to someone that knows more than just one vendor, that could take the focus off of you. So you yet again, bow to Microsoft.

So go out there, steal away! Arggh! Increase to ramming speed, board their vessel and pirate all the Microsoft software you want! Blame your immorality on the fact that Microsoft is stealing candy from retarded children (because 2 wrongs make a right afterall!)! Its only in the best interrest of Microsoft anyhow.

 

[cleverhandle]

Well stated, n0c.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: cleverhandle
Well stated, n0c.

Nah, parts of it were crude. But you should have seen what I editted out before I hit reply

 

[Toxic]

Hell, just call MS. Tell them you don't agree with the EULA, and you want to know where to send it to get your money back on the OS. They may point you back to compaq, then do the same thing to compaq. Point is, if you don't agree with the EULA, which you cannot read until you actually get it from inside the box, or when you install windows, then you cannot be forced to pay for it. After all, the EULA does state that if you don't agree with the terms to return the software.

"If you do not accept the terms of the License Agreement, you should return the product for a refund".

This is easier said than done. But...I'd make it point to irritate MS.

 

[alkemyst]

i am illiterate so an EULA is meaningless to me.

Microsoft is very anti-captialist to put it bluntly. Not only are they not happy they have a virtual monopoly, but they want to even dig their tendrils deeper with EULA mumbo-jumbo. Most of these line items are thrown out of court once you have the resources to get to that point.

Microsoft is spending big money policeing those that violate this licensure, especially on ebay and yahoo. My own legal copy to sell got me permanently banned from ebay now, until I jump through a bunch of hoops and paperwork.

All you Linux jockeys are retarded by saying run LINUX if you don't like windows. They are not even in the same league with applications and support of the average user. Your points are just stupid to bring up and you sound like those bearded old men spouting off how great VMS/VAX was.

Bottom line in the business world today, you need Windows. Mac OS and LINUX are merely idiot savants at this time that do a few things brilliantly, but not a whole bunch of real world stuff that well.

The EULA is so anti-consumer, but Microsoft is so powerful it's an anti-resolvable situation.

 

[sak]

Hey Nothinman what r u on a crusade to stop this type of stuff happening...lol..u work for MS or something?

you know it happens...and is always going to happen no matter what kinda of OS MS tries to put out with all kinds of activation protection or not...

if the guy does'nt want to use the OS on his computer then at least let the guy use it on another...

i see a bunch of ppl here on the forums trying to get all modest, but life's not that stright forward man...

a famous quote "rules are made to be broken".

i didnt see MS looking at the rules of a monopoly when they started integrating all their stuff into their OS's....I mean man think about i...they didnt add Sun's Java..just cause they can...because they MS gave some stupid reason...

MS and other compnies like that make the stupid rules.....man...how many of u have really read the whole EULA..and understood each and ever word of what that darn thing says...its made for the benifit of the company supplying the software...and not with the user in mind..

screw the user...is their policy...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: alkemyst
i am illiterate so an EULA is meaningless to me.

Microsoft is very anti-captialist to put it bluntly. Not only are they not happy they have a virtual monopoly, but they want to even dig their tendrils deeper with EULA mumbo-jumbo. Most of these line items are thrown out of court once you have the resources to get to that point.

And the people that use their software can be proud they aided Microsoft in their lofty goals.

Microsoft is spending big money policeing those that violate this licensure, especially on ebay and yahoo. My own legal copy to sell got me permanently banned from ebay now, until I jump through a bunch of hoops and paperwork.

Its called protecting assets.

All you Linux jockeys are retarded by saying run LINUX if you don't like windows. They are not even in the same league with applications and support of the average user. Your points are just stupid to bring up and you sound like those bearded old men spouting off how great VMS/VAX was.

Bwahahahahaha! Linux Jockeys

Bottom line in the business world today, you need Windows.

I disagree, but thats a different topic

Mac OS and LINUX are merely idiot savants at this time that do a few things brilliantly, but not a whole bunch of real world stuff that well.

Again, I disagree, but its still another topic.

The EULA is so anti-consumer, but Microsoft is so powerful it's an anti-resolvable situation.

Bull. Get off your high horse and do something about it. Or STFU. Its your choice. But Im not going to listen to a bunch of whiners. Notice how I did not mention Linux?

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: sak
Hey Nothinman what r u on a crusade to stop this type of stuff happening...lol..u work for MS or something?

I actually almost sent them a resume, believe it or not.

you know it happens...and is always going to happen no matter what kinda of OS MS tries to put out with all kinds of activation protection or not...

Oh, and that makes it ok. I forgot the relativisit morals people insist on today. Wait till the hardware and the software work in a nice anti-piracy, DRM, we 0wn j00 symbiotic relationship. It will be fun.

if the guy does'nt want to use the OS on his computer then at least let the guy use it on another...

If that is what the license had said then it should be fine. He can talk to Compaq and get a refund too.

i see a bunch of ppl here on the forums trying to get all modest, but life's not that stright forward man...

Modesty has nothing to do with this. Honesty does.

a famous quote "rules are made to be broken".

So are bones, but was the Mafia a good thing?

i didnt see MS looking at the rules of a monopoly when they started integrating all their stuff into their OS's....I mean man think about i...they didnt add Sun's Java..just cause they can...because they MS gave some stupid reason...

So they broke the law. That gives you reason to do the same? Highly doubtful. Even in the cesspool that the damn hippies continue to drown us in.

MS and other compnies like that make the stupid rules.....man...how many of u have really read the whole EULA..and understood each and ever word of what that darn thing says...its made for the benifit of the company supplying the software...and not with the user in mind..

They made it. If you made something wouldnt you want to control how it is used? I know I would. Thats why I would slap a beautiful BSD style license on it. I get just enough control to make me happy. Microsoft is working on getting enough control to make them happy. Get over it. Its theirs.

screw the user...is their policy...

And yet you continue to go crawling back. You like sitting funny?

 

[Nothinman]

Bottom line in the business world today, you need Windows. Mac OS and LINUX are merely idiot savants at this time that do a few things brilliantly, but not a whole bunch of real world stuff that well.

Depends on your needs. OS X and possibly Linux can take care a large percentage of what many positions in corporations do. Sure, if you're a win32 software company you need a few Win boxes to test and code on but that's not everyone. Day to day Office stuff can be done in Open Office on any platform or MS Office X on OS X, you could keep 1 Win box with MS Office on it for final prepping before sending to clients that use MS Office if you really want.

Hey Nothinman what r u on a crusade to stop this type of stuff happening...lol..u work for MS or something?

No, I just feel software developers should get paid what they ask for their work. Have you ever done any software development? I highly doubt it. Why don't you put time into learning to program (hell, learn VB since it's so easy just to get a feel for making something) then release it as shareware and see how many people download it and how many people actually pay you for it. And the "MS already has enough money" line doesn't work, just because they have cash doesn't mean their work is worth any less, and until you can account for how much they spend on development, research, etc on Windows you can't have a say in how much it should cost.

you know it happens...and is always going to happen no matter what kinda of OS MS tries to put out with all kinds of activation protection or not...

Sure, I'm not denying it happens. But why tell people who are willing to keep their software legal that they should just crack it and ignore the laws?

i see a bunch of ppl here on the forums trying to get all modest, but life's not that stright forward man...

I know, but in this case I found my way around MS' ugly tactics. I use Free Software and anyone who wants to take the time to learn a little can too. Sure once in a while I find an app for which I really need Windows to run, for that I have my laptop which came with a license for Windows.

i didnt see MS looking at the rules of a monopoly when they started integrating all their stuff into their OS's.

Honestly integration isn't illegal, hell being a monopoly isn't illegal. The problem I see is that I can't replace MS HTML renderer with a 3rd party one, if I could swap MSHTML with Gecko that would rock.

Linux distros include a lot of software similar to what MS does, the only difference is that I can uninstall Mozilla if I want but IE is forced to be there.

I mean man think about i...they didnt add Sun's Java..just cause they can...because they MS gave some stupid reason...

They didn't add it because they had their own JVM, which is totally legal until they started adding and changing things that can make it not compatible with Sun's JVM. That's why the lawsuit happened and why XP has no JVM out of the box. Sun said you can't released yours because it's not really Java and MS said fine we don't release one at all then.

MS and other compnies like that make the stupid rules

Some of them are stupid, some of them aren't. Hopefully it'll get sorted out soon.

its made for the benifit of the company supplying the software

Duh, they're selling you software of course the agreement to which you're supposed to abide is going to benefit them. How many deals have you entered into where one side didn't receive any benefits?

and not with the user in mind..

They're keeping you in mind, they're thinking you're going to take their software and install it on X more machines than you have licenses for, and they would be right.

our points are just stupid to bring up and you sound like those bearded old men spouting off how great VMS/VAX was.

Funny you should mention that, because a very large portion of the company I work for's profits are made by a VMS (mixed running on VAX and Alpha) cluster.

 

[chemwiz]

I don't think I'm being understood here, I'm 100% against piracy. But I'm also 1000% for consumer rights, and he LEGALLY has the right to put that OS on his other computer, no matter WHAT the EULA says. It's an unenforcable contract that they're trying to make you agree to (unless you're a business, then I believe different rules apply), because you have the right to use it as you see fit as long as you follow certain guidelines. You can hack it, crack it, whatever, just keep it on only one machine at a time! It's like the RIAA trying to say you can't record an mp3 from a CD you bought so you can play it in your portable (lol, let's open a whole new can of worms!).

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: chemwiz
I don't think I'm being understood here, I'm 100% against piracy. But I'm also 1000% for consumer rights, and he LEGALLY has the right to put that OS on his other computer, no matter WHAT the EULA says. It's an unenforcable contract that they're trying to make you agree to (unless you're a business, then I believe different rules apply), because you have the right to use it as you see fit as long as you follow certain guidelines. You can hack it, crack it, whatever, just keep it on only one machine at a time! It's like the RIAA trying to say you can't record an mp3 from a CD you bought so you can play it in your portable (lol, let's open a whole new can of worms!).

I think the DMCA disagrees with you. Are you willing to face the consequences of saying "break the law, its in your best interrests?" I am, but not over Microsoft. If you do not like it, buy more consumer-friendly software. Go to a company that cares a little more about you than whether you upgraded to the latest version of their software. Spending $70 on a linux box (for example) is much easer, safer, and more productive in the long run than spending $80,000 on lawyers trying to protect yourself from the DMCA.

Or you can pirate Microsoft's OS (yes, I believe not following the rules for the software is piracy) and support what they are doing. I stick to my principles. You can hide yours, or lie to yourself or whatever you have to do to sleep well at night. I will not support Microsoft in situations I do not have to, so I do not use them at home.

EDIT: Oh, and he has already been given a legal way to deal with this. Get a refund from Compaq.

 

[grunjee]

n0c --

In trying to clarify my post I'll try not to jump all over you (attempt to belittle) like you did me. It was late last night when I wrote that and you are correct, I made some poor choices with my wording. Damn, I'm surprised you didn't chasten me for misspelling "dispicible."

I'm still unsure of what to replace those words with so bear with me. As for the "practical use" thing, yeah, practical alone isn't the best word. More like practical, moral and fair, as determined by some body of law other than MS. Who knows, maybe this has already been done. Yes I am a layman, not a n0cmonkey, so forgive my ignorance if that's how the current EULAs came to be. Seems doubtful given the terms of certain EULAs but who knows.

And the communist thing. Yes, wrong terminology again. Maybe "[evil] dictatorship" (i.e., Castro, Hussein) is more what I was trying to say.

"Cry me a river" as you said. --Well that's the Microsoft spirit!

 

[magomago]

Monopoly isn't illegal. But to use that monopoly to prevent any competition is.

When Nvidia put 3dfx (they did...) out of business it was b ecause they produced a better product for the price.

They didn't force consumers not to use it, or make them agree to EULAS 95% don't even bother to read, or whatnot.

That is what M$ does

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: grunjee
n0c --

In trying to clarify my post I'll try not to jump all over you (attempt to belittle) like you did me.

You didnt see what I editted out. It was an early morning post

It was late last night when I wrote that and you are correct, I made some poor choices with my wording. Damn, I'm surprised you didn't chasten me for misspelling "dispicible."

My spelling and grammar are atrocious.

I'm still unsure of what to replace those words with so bear with me. As for the "practical use" thing, yeah, practical alone isn't the best word. More like practical, moral and fair, as determined by some body of law other than MS.

Why should someone else get to say what is fair when they are borrowing something of mine? If I license software, or let someone borrow code or whatnot, I want to determine what they can and cannot do with it. I own it, not them, they only get the right to use it. They should only be able to use my possessions in the ways I allow them to. My stuff, my rules. Obviously there are things where this does not apply, but those are typically physical objects that can injure people

Who knows, maybe this has already been done. Yes I am a layman, not a n0cmonkey, so forgive my ignorance if that's how the current EULAs came to be. Seems doubtful given the terms of certain EULAs but who knows.

I am no authority Microsoft's EULAs.

And the communist thing. Yes, wrong terminology again. Maybe "[evil] dictatorship" (i.e., Castro, Hussein) is more what I was trying to say.

That one just bugs me. Communism is a word that is thrown around an awful lot in attempts at hurting someone without truely understanding what it means.

"Cry me a river" as you said. --Well that's the Microsoft spirit!

No, thats the spirit of freedom. You have the right to cry a river over the fact you cannot use someone else's possessions in the way you want to. I have the right to call you an whiny kid and ignore you.

This is truly what free software is all about. The freedom to do what you want with it. Microsoft has taken advantage (not in a bad way) of their freedoms to do what they want with their software. That is one of their freedoms, nothing more, nothing less. And that is something, as an advocate of freedom, as a patriot, as an American, I have to protect.

(Sound corny enough to work? I want to take advantage (in the bad way) of recent events and use them to get ahead too!)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: magomago
Monopoly isn't illegal. But to use that monopoly to prevent any competition is.

When Nvidia put 3dfx (they did...) out of business it was b ecause they produced a better product for the price.

They didn't force consumers not to use it, or make them agree to EULAS 95% don't even bother to read, or whatnot.

That is what M$ does

Get hardware specs from nVidia (HA! Good luck!) and see what kinds of agreements you have to sign. A free software developer I know got some docs from Intel and had to sign a bunch of crap, even though he was writing FREE and OPEN SOURCE SOFTWARE.

I wonder if there is a license on their drivers...

 

[n0cmonkey]

Beind the curious ahole that I am, I decided to trek on over to nVidia's site to see what I could see. I went to drivers, selected GeForce, linux, go! There is indeed a license there, that I supposedly have to agree to. Ill share it with you all, with my comments of course.

link

License For Customer Use of NVIDIA Software

As you can see, its no where near the length of Microsoft's EULA, but its still pretty bad.

IMPORTANT NOTICE -- READ CAREFULLY: This License For Customer Use of NVIDIA Software ("LICENSE") is the agreement which governs use of the software of NVIDIA Corporation and its subsidiaries (?NVIDIA?) downloadable herefrom, including computer software and associated printed materials ("SOFTWARE"). By downloading, installing, copying, or otherwise using the SOFTWARE, you agree to be bound by the terms of this LICENSE. If you do not agree to the terms of this LICENSE, do not download the SOFTWARE.

Word.

RECITALS

Use of NVIDIA's products requires three elements: the SOFTWARE, the hardware on a graphics controller board, and a personal computer. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international copyright treaties, as well as other intellectual property laws and treaties. The SOFTWARE is not sold, and instead is only licensed for use, strictly in accordance with this document. The hardware is protected by various patents, and is sold, but this agreement does not cover that sale, since it may not necessarily be sold as a package with the SOFTWARE. This agreement sets forth the terms and conditions of the SOFTWARE LICENSE only.

I bolded an important part for you whiners. YOU OWN NOTHING!

1. DEFINITIONS

1.1 Customer. Customer means the entity or individual that downloads the SOFTWARE.

2. GRANT OF LICENSE

2.1 Rights and Limitations of Grant. NVIDIA hereby grants Customer the following non-exclusive, non-transferable right to use the SOFTWARE, with the following limitations:

2.1.1 Rights. Customer may install and use one copy of the SOFTWARE on a single computer, and except for making one back-up copy of the Software, may not otherwise copy the SOFTWARE. This LICENSE of SOFTWARE may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers.

Interresting. So one license per instance? Wierd... Where have I heard that before? Almost all commercial software products! And this one doesnt even cost you any money. Something to think about

2.1.2 Linux Exception. Notwithstanding the foregoing terms of Section 2.1.1, SOFTWARE designed exclusively for use on the Linux operating system may be copied and redistributed, provided that the binary files thereof are not modified in any way (except for unzipping of compressed files).

Thats awfully nice of them. I can put the linux version on limewire or kazaa, but not the Windows version.

2.1.3 Limitations.

No Reverse Engineering. Customer may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE, nor attempt in any other manner to obtain the source code.

This is pretty standard. In fact the DMCA also says this.

No Separation of Components. The SOFTWARE is licensed as a single product. Its component parts may not be separated for use on more than one computer, nor otherwise used separately from the other parts.

No Rental. Customer may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE to someone else.

Bwahahahahaha! Renting drivers I could download from the net without having to pay anything? Heh.

3. TERMINATION

This LICENSE will automatically terminate if Customer fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions hereof. In such event, Customer must destroy all copies of the SOFTWARE and all of its component parts.

Sounds reasonable. Cant follow the rules? Get out of the pool.

4. COPYRIGHT

All title and copyrights in and to the SOFTWARE (including but not limited to all images, photographs, animations, video, audio, music, text, and other information incorporated into the SOFTWARE), the accompanying printed materials, and any copies of the SOFTWARE, are owned by NVIDIA, or its suppliers. The SOFTWARE is protected by copyright laws and international treaty provisions. Accordingly, Customer is required to treat the SOFTWARE like any other copyrighted material, except as otherwise allowed pursuant to this LICENSE and that it may make one copy of the SOFTWARE solely for backup or archive purposes.

You wrote it, you drew it, got it.

5. APPLICABLE LAW

This agreement shall be deemed to have been made in, and shall be construed pursuant to, the laws of the State of California.

6. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATION ON LIABILITY

6.1 No Warranties. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND NVIDIA AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

Pretty standard. "If its broke, we arent liable for damages."

6.2 No Liability for Consequential Damages. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL NVIDIA OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION, OR ANY OTHER PECUNIARY LOSS) ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF NVIDIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

Oops, included part of this in the last section. The caps are giving me a headache

7. MISCELLANEOUS

The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods is specifically disclaimed. If any provision of this LICENSE is inconsistent with, or cannot be fully enforced under, the law, such provision will be construed as limited to the extent necessary to be consistent with and fully enforceable under the law. This agreement is the final, complete and exclusive agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous understandings and agreements relating to such subject matter, whether oral or written. Customer agrees that it will not ship, transfer or export the SOFTWARE into any country, or use the SOFTWARE in any manner, prohibited by the United States Bureau of Export Administration or any export laws, restrictions or regulations. This LICENSE may only be modified in writing signed by an authorized officer of NVIDIA.

Ok, so all of this legaleze gives me permission to download, install, and use an nVidia driver. This is for a freely (no money) available driver on the net! Imagine what it would say if they tried to make money off the drivers instead of the hardware...

 

[grunjee]

n0cmonkey, you raise some valid points, some that I haven't thought about before. And thanks for being nice this time around. Gotta run now but this has given me some food for thought...

 

[Nothinman]

Get hardware specs from nVidia (HA! Good luck!) and see what kinds of agreements you have to sign.

Not that I think it's good, but a lot of the reason the drivers published by nVidia aren't open source is because they have a lot of code they don't own in them, so giving it away would break their license agreement. Sure I would rather have open source drivers, but they ones they give out are very good quality, I've never had a problem with them and I'll continue to use them until a better alternative comes a long.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: grunjee
n0cmonkey, you raise some valid points, some that I haven't thought about before. And thanks for being nice this time around. Gotta run now but this has given me some food for thought...

I was tired from beating down someone in another forum. Youll get yours... youll get yours...

I look forward to your response, could be interresting.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Get hardware specs from nVidia (HA! Good luck!) and see what kinds of agreements you have to sign.

Not that I think it's good, but a lot of the reason the drivers published by nVidia aren't open source is because they have a lot of code they don't own in them, so giving it away would break their license agreement. Sure I would rather have open source drivers, but they ones they give out are very good quality, I've never had a problem with them and I'll continue to use them until a better alternative comes a long.

The quality of their drivers aside, getting hardware specs from them is probably close to impossible. And like I said, you have to sign a bunch of stuff with most of these companies even when they send you the docs you request and they know your code will be open to the world. That was my point... I think.

 

[Nothinman]

And like I said, you have to sign a bunch of stuff with most of these companies even when they send you the docs you request and they know your code will be open to the world. That was my point... I think.

Even in the hardware nVidia doesn't own the rights to all the components. I'm sure parts of it is them trying to protect their IP, but part of it is them trying to abide by the agreements that they licensed technology through. It's a vicious circle.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

And like I said, you have to sign a bunch of stuff with most of these companies even when they send you the docs you request and they know your code will be open to the world. That was my point... I think.

Even in the hardware nVidia doesn't own the rights to all the components. I'm sure parts of it is them trying to protect their IP, but part of it is them trying to abide by the agreements that they licensed technology through. It's a vicious circle.

Ok, my first two responses were crap so I will try this one last time.

This illustrates the consequences of restrictive licensing. Long live freedom. Long live the BSD license.

 

[Nothinman]

This illustrates the consequences of restrictive licensing. Long live freedom. Long live the BSD license.

I agree, but I was just trying to point out that not all companies are trying to screw you over. Most of them have licensing agreements they have to follow also, which restricts what they can do with their own products.

 

[bozo1]

[/yawn]

 

[sak]

lol yeha YAWN... looks like Nothinman and n0cmonkey are out to rid the world of software piracy by themselves... good for u guys...

hope u can do it..