●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
wnewsdaystalestupid
sightfulinterestingmaybe
cflamebaittrollredundantoverrated
vefunnyunderrated
podupeerror
×
87325395
story
Posted
by
msmash
mber 15, 2016 @10:20AM
from the between-the-lines dept.
Earlier this year, the U.S. Navy was accused of pirating 3D software after testing a software package offered by Germany company Bitmanagement Software GmbH. The company had sued the United States of America for nearly $600 million. The U.S. Navy has now responded to the accusations, saying that though it did install the aforementioned software on "hundreds of thousands of computers within its network" without paying the German software maker for it, it did so with the consent of the software producer. Many might disagree, however. From a report on ArsTechnica: The Navy says that it could use the software on hundreds of thousands of computers with licenses for 38 machines. The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."
Related Links
WhatsApp, Used By Over One Billion People, Gets Video Calling Feature
Secret Backdoor in Some US Phones Sent Data To China
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
"The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff.""
Then why did they buy more than one?
twitter
facebook
bywhoever57 ( 658626 ) writes:
"denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff."
Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.
byShanghaiBill ( 739463 ) writes:
Umm, I don't think copyright works like that.
This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.
byooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes:
This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.
We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.
And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.
byjittles ( 1613415 ) writes:
This is not just about copyrights. It is mostly about contract law. Have you read the purchase contract or license? No? Me neither. So anything either of have to say about this matter is pointless and meaningless.
We can, however, reasonably speculate whether the Navy's claims are plausible.
And as software developers, we can take this as a warning to make our contracts extra clear when dealing with the Navy.
Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines but only had 38 active users at a time? I don't know why they would install the software on so many machines, but who knows? Without the contract and an understanding of the software, we can only speculate.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bySolandri ( 704621 ) writes:
Or they're creating one huge standardized install image containing all software which could conceivably be needed, and installing it on all their computers to simplify IT administration. Mainly to eliminate the need for someone to have to dig through the basement of a warehouse or run to the store to find an install disk when they suddenly find out they need a program and it isn't on the computer - kinda important when you're in the middle of the Pacific ocean. And they only paid for 38 licenses because that's how many computers they're actually planning to use it on at this time.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byooloorie ( 4394035 ) writes:
Maybe the Navy is arguing that they had 38 seats that could be active at one time. Maybe they installed the software on 550k machines...
Which is why this lawsuit should serve as a warning: make sure your contract is bullet proof and crystal clear, because this contract obviously somehow failed to be.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
byninthbit ( 623926 ) writes:
There probably isn't a contract. They most likely picked up the 38 licenses on a p-card, and then their proof of concept test moved to full production.... Just like all the other government It projects.
bybobbied ( 2522392 ) writes:
"Hillary Clinton said we could do it"
Case dismissed.
But she deleted the E-mail that said so using bleach bit..... FBI investigating.... Or not...
byMegol ( 3135005 ) writes:
That's not how the law work.
bywhoever57 ( 658626 ) writes:
They actually have a signed contract with the vendor and they inserted "unlimited" or "concurrent users" ... and the vendor didn't notice or the vendor's own Salesperson/VP made the special deal - and now years latter the vendor's staff is "wtf we sell named seats, why do you have a million installed copies" - and literally, the only thing that will save the Navy's butt is if they can pull the contract out of archives and point to the specific line and say "see this, gtfo".
I have personally negotiated a con
bySJHillman ( 1966756 ) writes:
My guess is that, the way they saw it, they needed 38 licenses for employees doing X with the software (e.g. producing new content). Meanwhile, those purchased licenses (again, as they see it) also allowed them to have free reign to install it for everyone else who is doing the lesser task Y (e.g. viewing content).
byCulture20 ( 968837 ) writes:
Another possibility is that the Navy thought the 38 licenses were for concurrent use a la network licenses, or were restricted to specific users or hardware tokens, meaning that having the software on 550,000 machines isn't the same as being able to use it on all 550,000 machines at the same time, or by 550,000 users.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
It's possible but the Navy does this all kinds of things. They buy a handful of licenses that are absolutely not concurrent then roll it out in a desktop image to the thousands of machines. The Navy is big on copyright infringement. It isn't just software either, you'll find bootleg movies/music content being played to large groups in barracks all over the place.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bybudgenator ( 254554 ) writes:
Oh don't worry, the Donald will call Angela on the phone and explain that because the Navy is getting sued for $600 million, he's going to have to make some cut-backs on civilian staffing at US bases in Germany to take up the slack, how NATO is kind of obsolete and our allies really need to step up and be more responsible for paying for their own defense. After that the DOD is going to ask the vendor how they knew about the over-installs and how the DOD frowns on call-home features in software on DOD comput
bystephanruby ( 542433 ) writes:
Yes, that's what the Navy claims in its official answer to the claims by the plaintiffs.
15. [...] Defendant denies that the licenses were limited to installation of BS
Contact Geo on a total of 38 Navy personal computers, and Defendant further avers that the
Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses of BS Contact Geo.
By the way, avers means asserts. So the sentence should read as "Defendant further asserts that the Navy procured concurrent-use network-installation licenses...".
bybickerdyke ( 670000 ) writes:
Which would give everyone not being "more equal" jail time for hacking under the DCMA. Well, just throw in a good measure of blanket terrorism.
byBCGlorfindel ( 256775 ) writes:
It's a bit of an extreme example but plenty of companies sell network based licenses. So you can install on an infinite number of machines, but can only be running simultaneously on 38 machines at once.
bynetworkBoy ( 774728 ) writes:
But then it comes down to: Did this software have such a license? If so was the license server configured for only allowing 38 uses at once?
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
When it comes down to that, the story is awfully vague on what those 38 licenses were for: Named users? Node locked? Floating? Site? Enterprise? Creation? Playback?
bynetworkBoy ( 774728 ) writes:
but if that's true and the Navy did the rollout w/o paying for the licences to back it then it's still a problem.
It sounds like:
Navy bought 38 licences with a licence manager to test SW
Navy liked SW and told vendor they wanted to roll it to fleet but wouldn't pay unless the enforcement mech was removed.
vendor removed mech, expecting payday
Navy rolled out and went with the "we already paid (for 38) licence fee". - this step is fraud
byEntrope ( 68843 ) writes:
That says nothing about the nature of the licenses in question.
byaccount_deleted ( 4530225 ) writes:
Comment removed based on user account deletion
bybickerdyke ( 670000 ) writes:
Then there would be no reason to sue. The software vendor would know if licences were floating or site or any other kind that would make 500000 copies legal.
byZecretZquirrel ( 610310 ) writes:
38 is DOD-speak for 1.
byjandersen ( 462034 ) writes:
Look, 500,000 heavily armed soldiers looking at you in a menacing way aren't wrong, are they? Think about it.
byOliver Wendell Jones ( 158103 ) writes:
Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Sailors - not Soldiers. And as the Navy is the only US armed force that owns and operates a nuclear powered rail gun, I would much rather take my chances with the Soldiers...
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.
bykelemvor4 ( 1980226 ) writes:
Technically, as it's the Navy, they would be Marines which for some reason people forget are actually part of the Navy and not a separate branch.
Not for almost 200 years, if this is to be believed:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... [wikipedia.org]
In 1834, the United States Marine Corps came under the Department of the Navy.[46] Historically, the Navy has had a unique relationship with the USMC, partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations. Together the Navy and Marine Corps form the Department of the Navy and report to the Secretary of the Navy. However, the Marine Corps is a distinct, separate service branch[47] with its own uniformed service chief – the Commandant of the Marine Corps, a four-star general.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byBender0x7D1 ( 536254 ) writes:
The Commandant is, indeed, the head of the Marine Corps; however, it is definitely part of the Department of the Navy. (See the Marine logo.)
bycdrudge ( 68377 ) writes:
And as the Navy is the only US armed force that owns and operates a nuclear powered rail gun
The Navy actually operates one? As in it's installed on a ship and actually functional? I thought they were all still in design/testing phase with only the USS Zumwalt having excess power capacity to fully power one.
byafidel ( 530433 ) writes:
No, the Zumwalt class have the power, but so will the Ford class carriers. The Ford carriers were designed with solid state lasers and rail guns in mind, they produce 3x the power of the Nimitz class and have a vastly superior distribution network to enable many high power hard points.
bybickerdyke ( 670000 ) writes:
The Navy actually operates one?
No.. it's too expensive.... :-)
https://news.slashdot.org/stor... [slashdot.org]
byunixisc ( 2429386 ) writes:
Which license did the software in question use?
byAnubis IV ( 1279820 ) writes:
A proprietary license written specifically for that project, since the plaintiff indicated that there were terms specific to the project that the Navy is in breach of. For instance, the license stipulates that the Navy agrees to keep some tracking functionality in place, presumably so that the company could track the number of installations during the trial phase in order to ensure that the Navy didn't engage in any shenanigans. After installing the software hundreds of thousands of times, the Navy disabled that functionality without having first negotiated a new contract that allowed them to do so, so the number of installations may actually be far higher than the 550K number that the plaintiff is aware of.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnubis IV ( 1279820 ) writes:
Not only that, but if you read into the details of the suit, you find out that the Navy didn't even stick to the terms of the licenses they acknowledge they had with the company. Apparently, they purposefully disabled functionality built into the software that allowed the developer to track the number of installations during the trial phase of the deployment. The license explicitly said that the functionality needed to stay in place, presumably so that the company could find out if the Navy pulled a stunt l
byAnubis IV ( 1279820 ) writes:
I think the idea was that it would be there for the trial deployment of 38 computers only. Once it was accepted for full deployment, a new contract/license would be drawn up (which they were apparently in the process of doing when all of this went down), that stipulation would be removed, and the Navy would deploy the software without concern of that sort of tracking.
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
the Navy has many levels of air gaping and they can't open the networks to some 3rd part non us server. They also have systems / networking that are very locked down and don't have a local server licensing at each site for each network.
Adobe CC has a offline ver for government
bymartinX ( 672498 ) writes:
"The Navy denied that a procurement official "acknowledged that additional licenses were necessary for it to distribute BS Contact Geo to its users." The government admitted that it had purchased 38 licenses, but "denies that the software licenses were 'limited,' as alleged by Plaintiff.""
Then why did they buy more than one?
Because government is full of ignorant spenders who don't care about the taxpayer dollars they waste.
bybobbied ( 2522392 ) writes:
Sounds like they thought there was a difference between dev seats and production seats and maybe there wasn't. A lot of developer tools only require licensing for developer seats, while allowing you to distribute the software you produce without restriction. Other software charges no fees for the developer but requires a license for each production user. Some do both.
I would guess that the Navy had devs build software around this package, and distribute it. They paid for 38 licenses for their devs and thought they were good. The German company disagrees.
EXACTLY THIS!
Often you get a development seat which entities you to develop and build an application that uses a licensed product, then distribute said application free of runtime licenses. Other times, you pay per runtime seat and they give you the development tools. Usually, they charge for development tools, then expect a per-seat royalty for runtime installs. It all depends on the exact terms of the software license..
byCajunArson ( 465943 ) writes:
Copying the software to those machines might be a technical violation of the license, but was there any evidence that those unlicensed copies were ever actually used?
Otherwise, this is more of a theoretical violation as opposed to showing that the Navy was using software that it just didn't want to pay for.
twitter
facebook
byCalydor ( 739835 ) writes:
It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time. I mean, you can install on multiple machines to make things easier and faster, but THAT MANY?
Parent
twitter
facebook
byTWX ( 665546 ) writes:
It was probably part of their standard image.
Some software uses the local network or even the Internet connection to the vendor to determine active count.
bywienerschnizzel ( 1409447 ) writes:
It seems pretty unlikely that less than 0.1% of the total installations would be used at any given point in time.
0.1% would still be 15 times the amout of licenses they had purchased.
byCalydor ( 739835 ) writes:
Indeed, miscounted the decimals. Not that "Less than 0.01% of the installations were in use!" sounds any better for their efficiency.
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
or it's part of some software catalog system and some things that it being listed as being able to be installed. Counts as being installed on each system.
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
It doesn't matter if they were used or not. It is copying that is restricted by copyright law and requires a violation not use, you can use copyrighted material however you like copyright grants no control over that to the software producer. They could have burned 40 copies of the disk and stuck them on a shelf gathering dust and still be guilty of 39 copyright violations (you get one backup under fair use provisions, you lose it in practice under the DMCA if they've used copy protection on it thought).
Parent
twitter
facebook
byAnonymous Coward writes:
You've never read a site license.
Don't feel too bad; nobody has except the DoD lawyers. Yes, I had to wait 2 months for legal to finish reading a license to let me buy a $12 piece of software.
And yes, nobody really cared that I spent $3K in lawyer time for a $12 piece of software.
Parent
twitter
facebook
byblindseer ( 891256 ) writes:
Do you think that is unique to the military?
I was an engineering intern that wanted a $150 HTML editor for my semester project of updating a part of the company website. I spent at least a day writing a proposal to get a $150 HTML editor, getting paid for this time. So that the proposal could disappear for much of my internship, where I don't know who looked at it, and those people were getting paid to look it over. Not near the scale you speak of but I'm sure it happens all the time.
The alternative is t
byHannethCom ( 585323 ) writes:
You haven't been following court rulings very well.
There was a case of Microsoft vs a company where they had an enterprise license, meaning to OS is not locked to a machine. They had under the number of licenses in use on active computers, but they had some computers that were scheduled for wiping and hadn't been wiped yet putting them over the legal number of "active" licenses.
The judge ruled in Microsoft's favor as lawfully she had to, but as part of the judgement stated that morally Microsoft was in t
bykelemvor4 ( 1980226 ) writes:
Copying the software to those machines might be a technical violation of the license, but was there any evidence that those unlicensed copies were ever actually used?
Otherwise, this is more of a theoretical violation as opposed to showing that the Navy was using software that it just didn't want to pay for.
"USED" vs "Installed" may not be something the owner differentiates in the license. In which case it would not matter if the software was actually used.
byiCEBaLM ( 34905 ) writes:
I have no idea of the terms of the license given to the Navy which may have granted to them the ability to copy the software to any computer they wanted, however, this is not theoretical.
Absent any additional rights transfer, whether or not a copyrighted work is used or not doesn't matter, all that is required for a violation to occur is for a copy to be made.
byThud457 ( 234763 ) writes:
Seriously??? Yes, they installed it on 500,00 computers FOR NO FUCKING REASON AT ALL. Makes perfect sense. Go to all the effort of rolling it out everywhere because nobody wants to use it.
See, this guy gets it.
Welcome to the Navy.
bypaiute ( 550198 ) writes:
Don't sue parties armed with Tomahawk cruise missiles.
twitter
facebook
byDorianny ( 1847922 ) writes:
If you are going to sue a party let it be one that can afford a stockpile of 3,500 single use $1.41 million a piece,Tomahawk cruise missiles
byCoisiche ( 2000870 ) writes:
Although their assets are rather tied up in inventory. Which does admittedly have a resale value but there will be other laws governing who would make an acceptable buyer. I don't think it's a long list.
$600 million? Maybe they're set on 425 cruise missiles as settlement?
byMikeKD ( 549924 ) writes:
That's covered in the graduate-level course.
byAnonymous Coward writes:
I'm German and living in a cave. Most of us are. There are a few that aren't, but they are the outcasts.
Maybe try learning some FACTS.
byHangingChad ( 677530 ) writes:
NMCI was supposed to prevent all that. Is it gone now or still not working?
twitter
facebook
byMarcoPon ( 689115 ) writes:
Never underestimate the negotiating potential of a fully armed aircraft carrier. Or more than one.
twitter
facebook
byghoul ( 157158 ) writes:
Never underestimate the power of a virus which can make a modern network centric aircraft carrier a sitting duck.( I saw it on Independence Day so it must be true)
byTom ( 822 ) writes:
Silly, of course. Germany doesn't need an army anymore. All it needs to do to make everyone in every government office and three-letter-agency in the USA shit their pants is to leave NATO and make a free-trade agreement with Russia. It would pull the rest of the EU with it and the american economy would crater faster than you can say "oh shiiiiiit".
byRonin Developer ( 67677 ) writes:
Given that the copy protection / license management was disabled by the vendor and 38 copies were purchased, I have to wonder if the Navy purchased a 38 user concurrent license vs a per machine license or believed they had done so. If so, the software is responsible for communicating with a license manager to ensure that a maximum of 38 machines can use the software at a given time.
byBig Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) writes:
One wonders how practical that would be on a submerged submarine. It would be difficult enough on a surface vesel.
byBig Hairy Ian ( 1155547 ) writes:
On modern submarines a few because they don't carry spare parts any more they simply 3D print them as they need them
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
No, even if so the Navy is responsible for making sure they comply with the terms they agreed to not the vendor. The vendor might well require the use of something like a license manager to ensure the same and provide incentive not to pirate the software but it is piracy to violate the terms whether there are technical restrictions or not.
bybruce_the_loon ( 856617 ) writes:
Part of the user discussion on the article is about whether the licenses are for concurrent users or installations.
Now the software uses a central Flexnet licensing server and that supports a license pool and concurrent users. It depends on the terms of the license, but if the Flexnet allows an instance to start, then by my definition, that instance is licensed.
twitter
facebook
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
and what if they need to have it run on systems that are very locked down / have limited out side networking?
Need to have more then central Flexnet licensing server for different areas do to locked down networks?.
byHalf-pint HAL ( 718102 ) writes:
Apparently the vendor disabled copyright management at the Navy's request. I'm guessing the Navy has a specific resilience requirement that no software can rely on network availability, cos war can, y'know, break things.
byBenJeremy ( 181303 ) writes:
Yeah, when deployed, seats cannot be pinging the internet over a ship's intranet (and the severely limited internet connection), it's seen as a security threat, and from my own experience working on the NMCI contract, vendors WILL hear about it.
Parent
twitter
facebook
bymu51c10rd ( 187182 ) writes:
The US Navy are pirates? Can't wait for the new whites and blues to be issues with eye patches...
twitter
facebook
byk6mfw ( 1182893 ) writes:
they're not pirates, they are privatized (or whatever that term was for ships aligned with the British Empire). uhmm, yes it's a joke or maybe not as more of the US military is contracted out.
byWallyL ( 4154209 ) writes:
You keep looking for that word: privateer. I do not think that word means what you think it means.
byTheCarp ( 96830 ) writes:
Works for me, our foreign policy is just a few steps removed from "Plunder".
bypenguinoid ( 724646 ) writes:
I'm no expert, but if the representative on the phone promises something that makes it an oral contract, and could potentially supersede the written contract and especially any EULA. For example, if they specifically asked whether the contract meant 38 concurrent users vs 38 installs and they were told it was concurrent users. Of course, proving it in court is a different story.
twitter
facebook
bymsauve ( 701917 ) writes:
It depends on whether that rep had the authority to do so. Just because the bank janitor says you can take some cash from the vault, doesn't mean you're not stealing.
bysilas_moeckel ( 234313 ) writes:
Ever actualy been on a conf call for a big company every sales money has a vp title that implies authority to enter into contracts.
byGravis Zero ( 934156 ) writes:
Honestly, they should have contracted the work to a company that would make the program they needed based on something free like blender and then bought 3d/texture asset data. When you pay for a license, you are at the mercy of the copyright holder, even if you are the Navy.
byMegol ( 3135005 ) writes:
LOL! I hope you are kidding, for some uses it can actually be orders of magnitude of price difference between buying some _expensive_ software and taking open source software and funding development (in the case of blender probably rewrite the whole lot). Not in the favor of open source. Oh, and that assumes you can wait let's say 10 years on the result.
Or else one could buy that _expensive_ software and after 10 years of updates have a cheaper and more capable alternative.
byPeter Desnoyers ( 11115 ) writes:
If you look at the demo video on their website - http://www.bitmanagement.com/en/demos/geo - it appears to be a browser-based plugin; the actual "demo" link tries to download a file called "BS_Contact_VRML-3DX.exe from www.bitmanagement.com. The demo shows a user-controlled fly-over of an urban area, and seems highly applicable to a lot of military uses. (the software to *create* the model seems to be different - the software named in the suit is the viewer for the 3D models)
It's quite possible that the 500
byBrookHarty ( 9119 ) writes:
Oracle tried to do this when I was ATT Wireless, we had a site license for oracle. When we ran a contact address book with multiple users, oracle tried to make us pay per server, then tried pay per user for millions of users. Oracle kept calling me in operations to try to get me to pay, I passed it onto legal and they smacked the shit outta them.
We had a great deal, 5 or so million a year for an unlimited license, and you can believe me, everywhere a database was needed, we ran mostly oracle.
(This was 10+ years ago, so Who knows now)
twitter
facebook
bychispito ( 1870390 ) writes:
The summary is terrible. There are these things called site licenses. TFA indicates the developer claims the software was only licensed for 38 devices.
byJim Sadler ( 3430529 ) writes:
You know sex is only dirty when the other guy does it. By what magical use of logic does a license for 38 machines equal a license for an unlimited number of machines? Now what would happen to you or me if we purchased 38 copies of Windows 10 and decided to send out 10,000 copies? This is why it is time to admit that the absurd notion that we are all equal before the law is identified as 100% bullshit.
byiggymanz ( 596061 ) writes:
two words, nuclear fucking weapons. the U.S. Navy has them, you and me and Bitmanagement do not
bymandark1967 ( 630856 ) writes:
Just double the number of licenses and add 300,000 (instead of 30)
byrastos1 ( 601318 ) writes:
I wonder why does Navy need 550k computers that need to do 3D modeling. That is more than one per man in service [wikipedia.org].
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
Well when you count each os reimage as a new system or each VM a system they can add up fast.
byrikkards ( 98006 ) writes:
And probably had a Public Servant approve it.
byPlumpaquatsch ( 2701653 ) writes:
Surely that covers all 550k of our computers.... right?
Well, they bought it for the 38 people in the US Navy smart enough to use the program, and may want to use it on any of several .. errm ... hundred ... thousand computers - what if you need to quickly draw something on the missile guidance computer onboard a submarine?
Too bad they didn't ask the one guy in the Navy who is smart enough to understands EULAs-
bykelemvor4 ( 1980226 ) writes:
Surely that covers all 550k of our computers.... right?
Well, they bought it for the 38 people in the US Navy smart enough to use the program, and may want to use it on any of several .. errm ... hundred ... thousand computers - what if you need to quickly draw something on the missile guidance computer onboard a submarine?
Too bad they didn't ask the one guy in the Navy who is smart enough to understands EULAs-
Too bad eula's are so complex they may really need someone who specializes in such a thing. There ought to be a law ;)
byThe-Ixian ( 168184 ) writes:
They really are not all that complex... you just have to actually read them. Which nobody does.
byJoe_Dragon ( 2206452 ) writes:
or the contract says this but the EULA says this and that over rules the former.
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
The words you say to each other at the time of exchanging money for goods/services are your contract. The EULA is a bunch of words that the author really hopes you'll read and listen to.
Compared to those, what weight do words printed on the packaging have, such as "By purchasing this product, you agree that its use is subject to terms at (some URI)"?
byBronsCon ( 927697 ) writes:
Those would be words exchanged "at the time of exchanging money for goods/services", so you tell me.
bytepples ( 727027 ) writes:
About as much as a spoken word since it is always possibly to claim that the page contained some other content when viewed.
So long as the domain where the EULA is hosted doesn't use robots.txt, Wayback Machine can be used as evidence.
Some countries have contract law that requires that both parties ensure that the other party has read the contract
An Internet connection in the store would allow reading. And a prompt on the cash register to ask "Have you read the terms?" in the same manner as prompts to check ID for drug purchases would cover the store's behind. Finally, national anti-circumvention laws pursuant to the WIPO Copyright Treaty of 1996 can make decrypting the installer a crime even for the owner of a lawfully made copy.
byHalf-pint HAL ( 718102 ) writes:
I don't even understand why the government buys software. With sovereign immunity copyright law doesn't apply to them. Just pirate it and be done with it.
I don't think the concept of "sovereign immunity" is part of the Berne Convention....
Parent
twitter
facebook
byI'm New Around Here ( 1154723 ) writes:
What does that matter? He didn't even win his party's nomination.
bysinij ( 911942 ) writes:
Does that mean that they are kidnapping, raping, robbing, and murdering on the high seas?
Insofar as software licenses, they are allegedly doing exactly that.
byshaitand ( 626655 ) writes:
There is nothing honest about the MPAA/RIAA/BSA, their actions are closer in spirit to piracy than copyright infringement.
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
●
509 commentsTrump Orders Treasury Secretary To Stop Minting Pennies
●
491 commentsTrump Signs Order Aiming To Close the Education Department
●
464 commentsTrump Opens Trade Talks Window While Threatening China With Steeper Tariffs
●
381 commentsScott Adams, Creator of the 'Dilbert' Comic Strip, Dies at 68
●
361 commentsChina Halts Rare Earth Exports Globally
Secret Backdoor in Some US Phones Sent Data To China
WhatsApp, Used By Over One Billion People, Gets Video Calling Feature
Slashdot Top Deals
Slashdot
●
●
of loaded
●
Submit Story
Ya'll hear about the geometer who went to the beach to catch some
rays and became a tangent ?
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Secret Backdoor in Some US Phones Sent Data To China
111 comments
WhatsApp, Used By Over One Billion People, Gets Video Calling Feature
56comments
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...