#facestab last cranked 2010-01-21 22:53

"Meraki" built with opensource, but says you can't reprogram it
posted by textjunky at 2010-01-21 04:51

textjunky: "our question rephrased into a statement that re-flashing the device is against the EULA"
textjunky: luckily, real contracts require informed consent and documented acknowledgement
textjunky: so meraki and everyone like them can go and get fucked
textjunky: (modulo the purchaser's interest in clarifying what the vendor has failed to make clear)
textjunky: for the record, when presented with two unclear options during installation, i blindly click and retry until the fucking thing installs, then i do what the fuck i want with it
textjunky: if the options are (YES|NO) and my answer is (DON'T KNOW) what other choice do i have?
textjunky: even worded as 'have you read, understood, and accepted the terms of the license agreement?' ... I DON'T KNOW! how do I know when I've understood them?
textjunky: where is the DON'T KNOW button?
textjunky: we all know only lawyers read those 'contracts'
textjunky: we all know only lawyers can read those 'contracts'
textjunky: unless your target market is lawyers and people who can afford lawyers, then you know as well as we do, that the contract is not valid because WE DID NOT READ IT
textjunky: because of the principal of equality before the law, then, we cannot save the contract terms ONLY FOR THOSE WHO DID READ AND UNDERSTAND IT, exempting the 'plebs' who did not
textjunky: so if a 'contract' is invalid for some subset of the 'contractees' due to some qualifying factor, but one which was not explicit, it should be invalid for all of them
textjunky: in my completely ignorant, non-legal opinion
textjunky: the argument used to prop up the 'enforcement' of these 'contracts' (not enforced, not contracts, but pretended to be by many authorities) goes like this:
textjunky: yes, the people don't read the contract, but that's their lookout, their risk, yes, they have no opportunity to get clarification, no we do not keep records of their assent, but PLEASE JUDGE without these contracts being enforced unequally and punitively as they are now, we would not be able to afford to provide the services
textjunky: this argument is CRAP.
textjunky: if so many of your customers cannot/will-not read or consent to the 'contract', and you still offer the service, then you cannot claim that the service is offered subject to the terms of the 'contract', and so use of the 'contract' to effect punitive prosecution of a subset of customers in order to dissuade the majority from 'infringing' is discrimination
textjunky: this has gone off topic a little from the subject of the posted URL ... :)
textjunky: any argument that you can only prosecute a subset of the infringing customers due to cost of policing, only reinforces my argument that the 'infringement' is virtually universal
textjunky: and that universal infrgement being evidence of the fact that people cannot and will not assent to the terms, but still obtain the product. deal. stop being bullshit. deliver an honest service and respect your customers.
textjunky: ask for a grant or sponsorship if you have a valuable service that cannot be funded legally through sales or subscriptions.
textjunky: suppose i offer flights to saturn. and you point out that i cannot fly to saturn. stop infringing my right to make money! i cry. this is an analogy for the plea that we should enforce contracts that people have not assented to because otherwise your right to make money would be infringed. fly to saturn is impossible. people consent to shrink wrap license is impossible. deal.
textjunky: suppose i offer a service, whereby customers are loaded into a gas oven and burnt to death. and this activity is covered by a license that the customer has signed. they have no right to protest?
textjunky: DEAL.
textjunky: oh yeah, and if you make your software out of open source, the least you can do is consent when people want to erase that software and re-use your device which they have 'purchased' with some other (open source) software. to object, when it's legally improbably that your objection would be upheld, is both ingenuous and morally objectionable. remember to give back. plkthx
nene: The thing that makes me boggle, is faced with a choice between selling several hundred units effortlessly, and not selling several hundred units effortlessly, they chose the latter
seti: doesn't this fly in the face of the doctrine of first sale?
seti: Section 3.5 (iii) indeed says "Customer agrees not to ... load any other software onto the Meraki Hardware."
textjunky: the blog linked to mentions that the company changed the eula following their query .. so presumably the hardware they had already bought was under the old EULA, but any subsequent purchase would be under the modified EULA
textjunky: but the point is that it's just rude and stupid to prevent people putting their own software onto hardware you sell, if you can even do that, especially because the software they supply is open-source based ...
textjunky: .. and i don't get where doctrine of first sale might come into it ... but then, IANAL and stuff
textjunky: there's lots of stuff i don't get
textjunky: well actually, i guess i see a place for doctrine of first sale, but not sure if it's what you meant ... i guess a second hand dongle from these guys might not (in certain cases?) be covered by the EULA? is that what you mean ... ?

#facestab chump Archives for 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009