Matrox Parhelia Software CD

[albatorsk]

I agree, it's stupid. But where do you draw the line? Redistributing the drivers is as much piracy as downloading "warez".

[Kruzin]

I draw the line at software you would normally have to pay for.
You don't have to pay for drivers.
You "shouldn't" have to pay for a basic tech demo.
The coloreal app is borderline, but is needed for proper adjustment of the card, so in my book, it's closer to drivers than a stand-alone app....

[gt40]

Ok
First of all I think the content of this thread has strayed considerably from 'matrox hardware'

secondly, You can't consider anything readily available from the manufacturer freely on the net as being 'warez'.

That being said, I'm off to bed.

(hey, I made a rhyme)

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by gtforty
secondly, You can't consider anything readily available from the manufacturer freely on the net as being 'warez'.

Don't blame me. I didn't write the license.

[High_Jumbllama]

If you don't like what's being typed, leave it alone. Companies love to put these things in. They are usually not legal in any stretch of the imagination. You're asking people not to blame you and they're not. You're taking this holier than thou attitude against people and they're responding. You've got to be prepared to backup your arguments when challenged. You just seem to counter with that's the way it is comments which does not inherently mean it's correct.

Looks like we have another dogooder and not good-doer(sp?) on the boards.

Edit:
Sites redistribute this stuff all the time with and without permission.

[Haig]

To be honest I really don't think Matrox would raise any objections. All the s/w is readily available on the web site.


Haig??

I have no objections. If you download the driver and .net, then all you are really missing is colorific and the reef demo. You can get the gigacolor/viewer from http://www.matrox.com/mga/support/drivers/soft_update/home.cfm

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by High_Jumbllama
If you don't like what's being typed, leave it alone. Companies love to put these things in. They are usually not legal in any stretch of the imagination. You're asking people not to blame you and they're not. You're taking this holier than thou attitude against people and they're responding. You've got to be prepared to backup your arguments when challenged. You jsut seem to counter with that's the way it is comments which does not inherently mean its correct.

So, how should I counter it? The license explicitly says that you can not redistribute the software. What is there to discuss?

Looks like we have another dogooder and not good-doer(sp?) on the boards.

So it's OK to break some licenses, depending on what you feel like?

Edit:
Sites redistribute this stuff all the time with and without permission.

"Pirates" redistribute software all the time too. Does that make it OK?

I remember a certain forum that deleted and closed threads regarding the redistribution of DX9 beta, when it was freely downloadable from Microsoft.com.

[High_Jumbllama]

You type something, someone counters it effectively or not and you get pissy.

As for breaking licenses, I've paid for all my software thank you very much.

I never said it was OK to pirate software. Drivers and other freely downloadable software are vastly different than have to pay for games.

My point in any case is that click through licenses and licenses that you cannot read through without first buying the item are null and void. You don't have to read click-through licenses or even scroll through them. There is no signifcant authentication method. Usually there is a single button click. I was merely countering one of your points and not endorsing warez or pirating software.

Edit:
I hardly ever read through them. They can usually only be easilly understood by law or business students. They are purposely made confounding to confuse the consumer of their rights. Many even have "except where prohibited by law clauses".

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by High_Jumbllama
You type something, someone counters it effectively or not and you get pissy.

I'm not "pissy."

As for breaking licenses, I've paid for all my software thank you very much.

I have no doubts about that.

I never said it was OK to pirate software. Drivers and other freely downloadable software are vastly different than have to pay for games.

How so? They're still software. They're still bound by the national copyright laws (in most countries, at least), and they have a license to grant you, as the user, any extra privileges in addition to the copyright laws.

My point in any case is that click through licenses and licenses that you cannot read through without first buying the item are null and void.

This is, as you say, still to be decided by a court of law.

You don't have to read click-through licenses or even scroll through them. There is no signifcant authentication method. Usually there is a single button click. I was merely countering one of your points and not endorsing warez or pirating software.

I know that. The whole point of the discussion is that here we have these drivers. Freely available from the manufacturer. Although, there is a catch. You can't redistribute them, not even to your second computer, 3 feet away. Now, why is that silly clause in the license in the first place? What good does it do?

[Haig]

The whole point of the discussion is that here we have these drivers. Freely available from the manufacturer. Although, there is a catch. You can't redistribute them, not even to your second computer, 3 feet away.

Here's what we say:

2. You are permitted to use the Software on a single computer owned or leased by you. You may not use the Software on more than a single machine, even if you own or lease more than one machine, without prior written consent of Matrox;

[albatorsk]

I especially enjoy clause 6. Haig, is there a reason "data telecommunication" is mentioned specifically? Is that "tele" as in "telephone" (i.e. modem), or just tele, as in any media used to connect two computers? I'm not trying to be stupid about this, I'm really curious.

EDIT: I put a smiley in the post, not to seem too "pissy."

[Haig]

My interpretation of that clause would be via modem/ftp/laplink/email/etc.

I'm surprised that the penguin community hasn't jumped on this.

No matter what the entire agreement states, as long as Matrox says it's ok, then it's ok for that instance.

[High_Jumbllama]

Well, I am definitely not gonna argue with Haig, but one question if allowed to answer it:

Is it then wrong to back up the drivers on say a hard drive and then a CDR say for ones downloaded from the web but not actually using them on multiple machines. Not trying to be difficult, but this is what a lot of people do. The HD say on a internal file server or locally on the machine and the CD for emergency restore purposes in case the hard drive crashes?

Added:
Imagine administrators or computer enthusiasts trying to find all their drivers for old hardware years later after their hard drive crashed.

[Wombat]

Originally posted by albatorsk
So, how should I counter it? The license explicitly says that you can not redistribute the software. What is there to discuss?



So it's OK to break some licenses, depending on what you feel like?



"Pirates" redistribute software all the time too. Does that make it OK?

I remember a certain forum that deleted and closed threads regarding the redistribution of DX9 beta, when it was freely downloadable from Microsoft.com.

Bah, it's not like Matrox understands IP laws. They've have a EULA on the GPLed drivers for a long time, despite numerous mention.

[albatorsk]

Originally posted by High_Jumbllama
Is it then wrong to back up the drivers on say a hard drive {snip} on a internal file server

Well, here's where it gets tricky. Normally, national copyright laws override any software license, no matter what. Although, this has never been tested in court. The license specifically prohibits "telecommunication data transfers" of the software. That could be interpreted in many ways, and one is ofcourse that you're not allowed to store the software on a filserver for later retrieval.

This is exactly why I hate licenses like these. You're never quite sure what it means, and even if you are, it may not even be enforceable.

On the other hand, if EULAs are found to be invalid, it would mean, for example in Sweden, that you could buy 1 copy of Windows, and install it on all your computers at home.

I'm sure lots of other countries has similar "private use" clauses in their copyright laws.