PE>> Now since the compiler just translates C into object code, there
PE>> are absolutely no restrictions on using this tool. ie the object
PE>> code is yours to do with what you will.

DB> Assuming this is part of the license for using the compiler, yes
DB> (which it is for most compilers).

RS> Nope, you dont have a contract with the supplier of the compiler.

DB> Don't over-generalise, Rod;

Dont preach Dave.

DB> if it can be proven that a legal contract does in fact exist,

And I am saying that if the compiler has stuff like that in its manual
or on the envelope which contains the disks, with some crap about your
act of opening the envelope is formal agreement to the conditions, you
dont have a legal contract with the company providing the compiler,
whatever they like to claim on that matter.

DB> then you are bound by whatever the terms of the contract say.

And if you dont have a contract, you arent.

DB> Paul claims that since the compiler is merely a translation tool,
DB> there are absolutely no restrictions on what you do with the
DB> resultant code - this is false if the compiler owner has placed
DB> some restrictions on what you can generate with the code (and
DB> again, if it can be proven that a contract exists).

And I was saying that no contract exists in the normal circumstances
of buying a PC compiler, so the question of what they claim if there
was a contract doesnt arise, coz there is no contract.

RS> They can write whatever crap they like on envelopes containing
RS> the disks etc, and they can whistle dixie for all the contract
RS> that purports to be.

DB> Actually, no;

Actually, yes.

DB> they can *only* whistle dixie iff the contract is not visible
DB> to the consumer at the time of breaking the seal.

Nope, it has not been established that even the stuff on the outside of
the envelope containing the disks has resulted in a contract between you
and the compiler supplier if you open that envelope to get the disks.

DB> Should the contract be in plain sight (as it is in the case of disks
DB> in envelopes), then the vendor would have an extremely strong locus
DB> standi.

Nope, they have never ever won a single action on that basis. Not once.
And IMO they know damned well they havent got a leg to stand on coz they
energetically avoid any situation where that can be tested in court after
having been burnt on some tests.

DB> The case would be very different should the seal be on the outside of
DB> a shrinkwrap package, and the contract was inside (as it is in many
DB> cases);

Nope, you dont have the cases to show that the envelope is a contract.

DB> however, this has never been tried in court, so until it is
DB> contested then we are merely speculating (who knows, the court
DB> may decide that you should have contacted the vendor for contract
DB> details prior to breaking the seal - courts have made wierder
DB> decisions..).

In fact its not true that there has been no testing whatever of the
'shrinkwrap contract' stuff. And IMO if it was as cut and dried as
you suggest, they would have taken action. They havent, IMO because
they know damned well what the result would be.

IMO it would be just like the crap that purports to take away your
rights by stuff printed on tickets and on signs in premises. It wont
wash. Its a try on. Some people are silly enough to be bluffed.

DB>> ...the EMX library add-ons are covered by *different* copyright
DB>> licensing restrictions...

RS> And they STILL arent necessarily binding on users either.

DB> Why not?  There's no seal involved, there is a legal copyright,

Yes, but copyright aint licensing restrictions. Copyright is copyright,
licenses are licenses. Yes, some stuff is protected by general copyright
law regardless of what the supplier or purchaser has been told etc.

DB> and you have the contract terms in plain sight prior to using the
DB> software.

Contracts aint copyright. Utterly different. The protection that a
copyright holder has under the law has nothing to do with any notification
of the customer or license either necessarily. Tho some of the rights the
copyright holder can certainly be waived if he chooses too, like for
example being paid.

DB> Enforceability may be called into question, but only in the case of
DB> "small timers" without the resources to prosecute across the globe.

Well, thats a nuvver quite separate can of worms entirely. Yes, just like
there are considerations about taping stuff off TV being illegal in a
technical sense, actually being at risk of prosecution is another matter
entirely. Ditto for say photocopying an article out of a magazine say.

--- PQWK202