> There was a problem that I noticed right away, though: this text was from the GPL v3, not the GPL v2. In my original request I had never mentioned the GPL version I was asking about.
>The original license notice makes no mention of GPL version either. Should the fact that the license notice contained an address have been enough metadata or a clue, that I was actually requesting the GPL v2 license? Or should I have mentioned that I was seeking the GPLv2 license?
This is seemingly a problem with the GPL text itself, in that it doesn't mention which license version to request when you mail the FSF.
A Sid Caesar skit showed doughboys celebrating and one shouted "World War 1 is over!"... when they made GPLv2 maybe they didn't anticipate creating future versions (although yeah, if you're already on v2 you should foresee that).
Well to be fair, that's not the full license notice, that's only the last paragraph. There should a couple more above that one and the first paragraph says the version of GPL in use. That said I think the license notice is also just a suggested one, it's not required that you use that _exact_ text.
How does a sender who only has a GPLv2 license notice even know that there is a v3? Should they first send a letter asking which versions are available?
the usual license header has something along the lines of "either version [23], or at your discretion, any subsequent version", which clearly explains that there are specific versions with distinct rules. Many people opt not to include this clause because they (understandably) don't want to automatically agree to a contract that hasn't even been written yet. However if they fail to make the version clear that's on them.
Anyways I don't think this defense would ever fly in court. As soon as the plaintiff's lawyers produce evidence that you are aware of GPLv3 (such as pointing out that you have GPLv3 software on your PC or phone) the judge is going to see that you're trying to game the system on technicality and sanction you. Judges really don't like this sly loophole BS where it's extremely obvious that you're feigning ignorance for the sake of constructing an alternate reality where you hypothetically never knew there was a GPLv3.
If the sender requests GPLv2, he should receive GPL version 2.
If the sender requests GPL, I find it natural for him to receive version 3, because it's the latest version. At the time of receiving the license, he gains knowledge about the existence of version 3 (the header on the print says the GPL he received is version 3).
If the sender has a notice about GPLv2, it means that there's a high chance that there's also GPLv1. This should be a sufficient hint that requesting only "GPL" is not sufficient, because the sender should be aware of the risk of receiving GPLv1 if he won't mention the "v2".
> Note that after a hotplug event, the user DOES get a prompt about an update. However, it is an opt-OUT prompt, meaning the update will install in 30 seconds unless "abort" is clicked.
I agree that calling it "0-click" is not a lie, but I also think it's a little bit dishonest.
High probability the target interprets prompt as routine automatic update notification and does nothing.
It's not clear what would actually happen, but it also seems plausible that the hotplug event gets triggered by merely (un)plugging a USB-C charger while folio is closed.
VSCode remote editing trojan is the only remote editing mechanism that actually works.
Tramp might be good in imagination, but in reality it's just a poor plugin that sometimes works, and even if it works, it's only good for some use cases.
It's not enforceable, but EULA is still: "this is the software we made, here are our expectations for the software, this is what you should give us for the right to use the software". And by buying the software you say: "I agree to exchange our expectations about the software."
And a country's laws are "here are the expectations how companies should behave in our country", yet companies routinely violate those and write extortionate EULAs that ask for more than they legally can, using their team of lawyers to create a legal knot that they expect lay users to untangle.
Fuck them, and fuck the idea that contracts are morally superior to laws. We see how contracts (and EULAs) are used.
Like you've said, companies have lawers, so I don't think there's an EULA that's illegal. The volume and hard to read nature of EULAs is legal and it's actually not possible to write EULA in an easy to read language, because easy to use language is not strict enough to defend itself in the court.
You trying to fuck the company only shows that you're doing the same thing as the company does, only mirrored. Yet you're the one that's morally right?
> Like you've said, companies have lawers, so I don't think there's an EULA that's illegal.
They include terms in the EULA that are unenforceable, and let the users figure out which those are. Most users don't have teams of lawyers to go over every EULA for every minor purchase, so they are tricked into relinquishing rights even when the law forbids such terms.
> You trying to fuck the company only shows that you're doing the same thing as the company does, only mirrored.
Trying to hold on to my legal rights (in this case not getting spied on by a very expensive product) is not "fucking the company", except in an utterly backwards moral code where trying not to get scammed and exploited is equivalent to scamming, just because the former involves breaking a corporate-written piece of paper that reads "we get to scam, exploit, and spy on you, and you give up your right to sue us for it".
> The only winning move is not to play.
Meanwhile companies lobby for favorable laws (banning users from examining how stuff works, i.e. reverse-engineering, banning circumventing DRM even for use that is otherwise within your rights, allowing mere EULAs to relinquish your right to even hold the company accountable in court, i.e. mandatory arbitration, etc.) - they sure don't think just giving up is "winning". But they're more than happy to let you think that, while they stack the deck even worse. You are their ideal customer, that will just bow his head and take any abuse dished out, and the most they can fear from you is that maybe you'll instead buy from someone else next time.
reply