From: Darby Weaver (dweaver@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 12 2002 - 00:30:51 GMT-3
So is the Eula a topic for the exam. Or is this simply computer crime 101.
Who's really guilty anyway? The buyer (may even be his/her first piece of
Cisco Equipment)?
Or the original seller ----> Yep the one who originally agreed to the
license.
The secondary market may have never even been presented with the license to
begin with.
But the primary buyer had most certainly agreed to it.
So I guess the lawsuits should start with all or nearly all of Cisco's
clientelle who have sold or intend to sell illegal copies of the IOS.
Since they (the original purchaser), not the buy, in fact did agree to the
license and knowingly sell it without taking the standard precaution of
deleting the image.
So where to we start: IBM, WorldCom, Cisco (itself), all or nearly all of
the fortne 500's etc.
If a simple user gets sued - Then somebody better sue everybody.
Are we clear?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael Snyder" <msnyder@ldd.net>
To: "'Kelly Cobean'" <kcobean@earthlink.net>
Cc: <ccielab@groupstudy.com>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 PM
Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
> My AGS has ROM, not flash. Do I have to remove the rom chips if I sell
> the AGS?
>
> OTOH, isn't all the bootroms a mini version of the IOS? Better remove
> those bootroms!
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kelly Cobean [mailto:kcobean@earthlink.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 9:29 PM
> To: Michael Snyder
> Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
>
> Michael,
> I completely agree with you that to the end-user, this is a
> completely
> unreasonable, un-enforceable requirement. However, you MUST agree to
> the
> EULA/Software License before you can download an IOS from the Cisco
> web-site, and I believe if you purchase an IOS on CD (not sure if you
> can
> still do this or not), you agree to the license by either opening the
> package or installing the image. There is no such EULA when buying a
> clock
> radio, so your analogy is not technically accurate. If the manufacturer
> of
> the clock radio stated on the box "by opening this package and using
> this
> product, you agree to be bound by the EULA, which states that the
> firmware
> on the clock is sold under a non-transferrable license. Sale of this
> clock
> does not constitute sale of the firmware, which must be relicensed from
> the
> manufacturer by the purchaser", then you would have a valid argument,
> except
> that then selling your clock radio to a person who does not re-license
> the
> firmware is illegal.
>
> I'm not saying I agree with it, I'm not even saying that it's not
> totally
> ridiculous. What I am saying is that not complying with it is breaking
> the
> law. It's software piracy, plain and simple. Additionally, I won't
> tell
> you that I haven't done this myself, because I have, so I'm guilty too.
> The
> point of my post was "Is Groupstudy placing itself at risk by providing
> a
> vehicle for the interstate, international sale of non-transferrable
> licensed
> software?". What do you think?
>
> Regards,
> Kelly Cobean
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Snyder [mailto:msnyder@ldd.net]
> Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:45 PM
> To: 'Kelly Cobean'
> Cc: ccielab@groupstudy.com
> Subject: RE: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
>
>
> Hey, my analogy is simple. My clock radio has a processor, memory, and
> firmware. Want to tell the next person that buys my clock radio, or
> microwave, or tv set that they have to relicense the firmware!!!
>
> In truth, some clock radio manufacture should do this with a elua, so we
> can get all the junk thrown out of court.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> All,
> I'd like to post something for contemplation, not to direct at Dale
> specifically, but this is something that continually concerns me when I
> see
> people selling Cisco equipment. Please read the following paragraph
> from
> the Cisco's Policy on Software License Transfer:
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Sep 07 2002 - 19:36:27 GMT-3