| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Legality of terms of serviceLegality of terms of servicePosted Jan 12, 2012 3:49 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755)In reply to: Legality of terms of service by southey Parent article: The Nook Tablet and the GPL
So, are the terms of *purchase of the object* (which are generally those of the Uniform Commercial Code) strict enough to protect B&N from being charged with commercial fraud for selling an object that -- once I'm done modifying it the way I want, as is my right under First Sale -- no longer works *and they knew this in advance*?
(Log in to post comments)
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 12, 2012 15:07 UTC (Thu) by southey (subscriber, #9466) [Link] Not a lawyer, but you cannot sell your hardware with software that you don't have a right to sell or distribute. That is essentially what I understood from Groklaw's coverage (apologies for any of my errors) of what Psystar wanted to do with Apple software. Also see Vernor v. AutoDesk that software is not protected by first sale.So if once I'm done modifying it the way I want means removal of software that you have no right to sell or distribute then there is no problem by you or them. If not, then I would think that they have a case against you if they wanted to.
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 12, 2012 20:01 UTC (Thu) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link]
I wasn't clear; I'm sorry.
If B&N knows that if you modify the device -- in a way they are required to permit, by license -- that it will then be non-functional... *does B&N give enough formal notice of that to buyers, and does that notice protect them from being charged with fraud* under the Magnusson Moss act, or the UCC, or what have you? Because they are, effectively, selling that category of buyers a brick. And they know this in advance.
That was my question; sorry for burying the lede.
Legality of terms of service Posted Jan 15, 2012 23:02 UTC (Sun) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
This varies by jurisdiction. AIUI the reason we have "System Builder" rather than "OEM" licenses in Germany is that some court decided that you can in fact sell software licenses you own. Typical how they try to claim "software==physical object" when someone copies it, but when someone sells it then suddenly they expect special treatment..
|
|
||||||||||||