From: Kelly Cobean (kcobean@xxxxxxxxxxxxx)
Date: Fri Jul 12 2002 - 23:12:01 GMT-3
Darby,
Firstly, YES, this is a valid topic for the exam. It potentially
affects the way you prepare for the lab IF you follow the licensing
agreement to the letter.
My interpretation of the agreement is that any time a piece of hardware
changes hands, the software is not included, without "royalties" being paid
to the company. I don't believe it matters if you were presented with the
license or not, because like most EULA's state, "use of the software
constitutes acceptance of the license agreement." It's your responsibility
to be aware of what you are agreeing to be bound by when using that product.
And YES, the buyer is definitely at fault. As much or more than the seller.
A loose analogy would be renting a car and then selling it to a third party
with their knowledge that the car is rented. The car is NOT the property of
the seller, so buying the car makes the buyer just as guilty as the seller.
And it doesn't matter how many times that car gets sold, it still belongs to
the rental company. As a seller, you are profiting from something that,
according to the license agreement, doesn't belong to you.
Now please understand, I am playing devils advocate to an extent. If you
asked me if I licensed the IOS for all of the routers in my lab, I could not
honestly say yes. I'm not afraid to say that because it's no more an
admission of guilt than your vigilant defense of the practice of violating
the EULA.
As I stated before, my primary reason for raising the topic is this....Does
Groupstudy.com place itself in any jeopardy by providing a vehicle for the
transfer of said software in violation of the EULA. The case of Napster
comes to mind (and yes, I realize that it's different in that there was
full-blown reproduction and distribution of copyrighted material in that
case) where a company created a means to violate copyright law. When you
buy a CD, you agree that no portion of that CD may be redistributed without
consent. It's still an EULA, just different constraints.
Now...Are WE clear?
Respectfully,
Kelly Cobean
-----Original Message-----
From: nobody@groupstudy.com [mailto:nobody@groupstudy.com]On Behalf Of
Darby Weaver
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 11:31 PM
To: ccielab@groupstudy.com
Subject: Is Cisco going to sue it's entire clientele for software
piracy???Re: RE: OT - Lab for SALE
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 - 19:36:28 GMT-3