I think it's more about the rights of one person to steal the work and efforts of another. Legally I have zero obligation to distribute what I create. Legally I have the right to charge whatever I wish for that product. Legally I have the right to put any restrictions on the use of that product I wish (but not on the use of other products). I do NOT ask people not to use a combat macro program. I ask them not to use It! IF they use a combat macro program. As the sole author, owner and distributor of the It! programs, that is my right. If people do not want to use them and want to use combat macros instead, that is their right. Use of a product in violation of it's license terms is not only unethical, it is illegal, at least in the United States. Yes, license terms CAN be trumped by state laws in VERY specific instances, but in general the power is in the hands of the creator. I doubt you will find any laws that invalidate my license agreement.


This is NOT copyright law. This is product sale and licensing, an entirely different issue.

I wouldn't worry about "constitutional rights". the courts have historically been very willing to allow people to freely enter into whatever contracts they like, including contracts that restrict the rights of one or both parties.


that is, the court recognizes your right to enter into a contract that restricts your rights, if that's what you want to do.


civil liberties have nothing to do with it. you do not have a "civil liberty" to use *my* work without my permission, and on my terms. that's the realm of Intellectual Property law. and property law is king. or to put it another way, property rights trump all other rights.


-ken

Hmmm, so I can write a plugin and place in the EULA that you must agree to not have Diablo II or QuickTime installed on your machine?


I seriously doubt that. =)

no, but you can do the reverse: write a plugin and place in the EULA that you can only use it if you don't use Diablo II or QuickTime.


the agreement is not that you won't use D2 or QT, the agreement is that if you do, you'll stop using the plugin.


the EULA describes the terms under which the plugin may be used, it does not place terms on how other products may be used.


-ken

to put it another way, there is no difference from a "civil liberties" perspective between writing a plugin that refuses to function if QT or D2 are installed, and writing one that works fine but whose EULA requires the user to simply avoid doing so.


the end result is the same, the only difference is the method of enforcement.


it would be quite another matter, however, if the plugin deliberately interfered with QT or D2 in such a way as to make them stop working. but I doubt you'd get prosecuted for it. computer systems have a long history of incompatible software, and such things are generally accepted as normal. how often have you upgraded to the latest video driver to make the newest game work, only to find that the new driver doesn't work with your old games? you certainly don't scream that the video card manufacturer is trying to deprive you of your civil liberties, you just resign yourself to the fact that there's a compatibility problem.


this is not to say that you *couldn't* take the case to court, just that people typically don't bother, unless they have compelling evidence that you're engaging in anticompetitive behavior.


-ken

Well, in the least it's unenforceable. Doesn't the phrase "programs installed that are capable of Combat Macroing" imply prior knowledge or intent? If multiple players use the same machine (at different times), and one player downloads Make It! without knowing that any programs are installed that are capable of Combat Macroing, is that player in violation of Gouru's agreement?


And "programs installed that are capable of Combat Macroing" would be based on Gouru's standard. So does this agreement give Gouru the right to inspect the player's computer to determine if there are any programs installed that are capable of Combat Macroing? I think Sony did something like that and they are in hot water over it.


[edit]: And what if the programs installed that are capable of Combat Macroing are installed but not configured to run? What if they are disabled? What if the player attempts to remove the programs installed that are capable of Combat Macroing and fails because of an error in the installer/uninstaller?


And by installed, does that mean just having the files on disk? Or certain registry entries. What if the player installed Eltank in order to use only the navigation part of the software? If the user never intends to combat macro, isn't that player considered to follow the spirit of what the author wants?

"Legally I have the right to put any restrictions on the use of that product I wish (but not on the use of other products)."


Any restrictions? So you can say that if the player is a Puerto Rican female (not necessarily physically in Puerto Rico), that the player may not use your software?

That is simply hyperbol, and would be against many laws in the US. I do not think MT_Gouru's licening agreement is anything like such. Just a simply do not use his software on machines that are enabled to do Combat Macros. You should respect it.

And I do respect it. Like I said, I don't have Eltank or any tanks for that matter installed.


I'm just pointing out that his assertion:


"Legally I have the right to put any restrictions on the use of that product I wish (but not on the use of other products)."


is incorrect.


[edit]: So let me get this straight. If the clause violates a law or 2, it's ok, but if it violates many laws then it's not?


BTW: "ou should respect it." I meant that I respect his point of view. I'm just pointing out that the EULA may be invalid.


You should respect it too.

<< Any restrictions? So you can say that if the player is a Puerto Rican female (not necessarily physically in Puerto Rico), that the player may not use your software? >>


Technically yes, and in a free society he probably should be too. That is another discussion though.


His plugin, he doesn't charge for it, I think he is allowed to set limits on its usage.

 

-----signature-----