Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA

Expand Messages
  • Chen Shapira
    ... There is a slight diffrence between EULA and a contract. When you read your rent contract, you look for things you want to change, and ask your future
    Message 1 of 17 , Sep 24 7:07 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      > Most users automatically click OK when they see an EULA
      > without reading a
      > word. Interesting enough, many of these people will never
      > sign something
      > they didn't read. However, with legislation that makes EULAs
      > binding, both
      > have the same legal weight. In that sense, this could be an
      > interesting
      > test.

      There is a slight diffrence between EULA and a contract.
      When you read your rent contract, you look for things you want to change,
      and ask your future landlord to change them.
      With EULA, one of the reasons we don't bother to read it, is that its the
      only game in town.
      If I need a certain program, I know that I'll have to agree to the EULA in
      the end. So I just agree in the beginning.
      BTW, some contracts I barely read, I never read the contract I signed when
      openning a bank account, or when getting a credit card.

      > Rethinking it, we should actually write in the EULA what
      > the program does
      > ("This program will send itself to all people from which you
      > have stored mail
      > and then wipe your entire hard drive. By clicking 'I Accept',
      > you hereby waive
      > all claims against the manufacturers of this program.")

      You are getting more extreme. Last post you claimed that this worm won't
      cause demage.

      BTW, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of illegal
      contracts.
      Not every contract you sign is binding.
      A person can't sell himself to slavery, and in many places the "no warranty"
      clause is also non binding.


      > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
      > agree to an EULA? :)

      They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
      GPL is no warranty too.

      > Also, with open source you can check the program before agreeing to a
      > disclaimer of all warranty or liablity.

      Sure... Right...
      The same person who can't be bothered to read 50 lines of EULA will now read
      1000 lines of code?
      Also, an open source program could be in a programming language you don't
      know too well (emacs modules in lisp come to mind)


      > See my comment above. Most people don't think of EULAs as
      > binding contracts.

      I agree, thats why they feel free to copy propietory programs around.
      they just can't force themselves to take computers as a real serious thing.
      But I doubt if the worm will make them change their mind, especially since
      it may well be non-binding.

      > > IANAL either, but it sounds interesting.
      >
      > So let's go... we should just remember to cover our backs...

      I'm a bit hesitant here.
      I like the idea of seeing users agree to horrible things without even
      knowing.
      I dislike the idea of email worm, both in burden to the infrastructure and
      in the breach of privacy involved when you read someones address book.

      Sorry, but I doubt if I'll carry it out.
      I still want to do some sort of study on the subject of "what makes users
      click", but I'll guess I'll do it the usual way with a usability lab.

      And on the subject:
      There used to be a service provider in the states, they gave their users a
      special email client to use.
      During usability study it became apparent that users have trouble closing
      the program.
      Apparently, when clicking "exit", the program displayed a popup saying "are
      you sure you want to exit?". Most people decided that they did something
      wrong, and the program is warning them, so the clicked "no" and searched for
      a diffrent way to close the damn thing.

      Tricky thing, users.
    • Tzafrir Cohen
      ... When was the last time you installed Mandrake? -- Tzafrir Cohen mailto:tzafrir@technion.ac.il http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
      Message 2 of 17 , Sep 24 7:19 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Alon Altman wrote:

        > When did you see an open source product forcing you to agree to an EULA? :)

        When was the last time you installed Mandrake?

        --
        Tzafrir Cohen
        mailto:tzafrir@...
        http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
      • Nadav Har'El
        ... Reminds me of a practical joke I played several years ago on a friend at work, to revenge against the fact that he reniced other people s processes to
        Message 3 of 17 , Sep 24 7:25 AM
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mon, Sep 24, 2001, Chen Shapira wrote about "RE: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA":
          > Users don't read. They hardly read any popup message that appears on the
          > screen. But they click. And because they don't read, their clicking patterns
          > will seem quite random.
          > However, I have a feeling that given enough study, some interesting patterns
          > can emerge.
          > Most users, given a dialog they don't understand will prefer to click
          > "cancle" rather than "ok".

          Reminds me of a practical joke I played several years ago on a friend at
          work, to "revenge" against the fact that he reniced other people's processes
          to make his run faster. I wrote a small program (in Tcl/Tk, if anyone cares)
          that popped up on his screen a dialog looking like (I don't remember the
          exact text):

          +------------------------------------------------------+
          | The system has detected an illegal attempt to lower |
          | the priority of other users. All your processes will |
          | now be killed. Press OK to continue. |
          | |
          | +-----+ |
          | | OK | |
          | +-----+ |
          +------------------------------------------------------+

          I guessed that the guy would be afraid to press OK (because the dialog
          says this will kill all his processes), and will run from his office asking
          people for help and advice on what to do. That's exactly what happened ;)

          --
          Nadav Har'El | Monday, Sep 24 2001, 7 Tishri 5762
          nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
          Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Isn't Disney World a people trap operated
          http://nadav.harel.org.il |by a mouse?
        • Alon Altman
          ... Intersting. ... OK, Let s forget about the damage part and just mention that the worm is an experiment and is developed for educational purposed only.
          Message 4 of 17 , Sep 24 7:51 AM
          • 0 Attachment
            On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Chen Shapira wrote:
            >
            > > Most users automatically click OK when they see an EULA
            > > without reading a
            > > word. Interesting enough, many of these people will never
            > > sign something
            > > they didn't read. However, with legislation that makes EULAs
            > > binding, both
            > > have the same legal weight. In that sense, this could be an
            > > interesting
            > > test.
            >
            > There is a slight diffrence between EULA and a contract.
            > When you read your rent contract, you look for things you want to change,
            > and ask your future landlord to change them.
            > With EULA, one of the reasons we don't bother to read it, is that its the
            > only game in town.
            > If I need a certain program, I know that I'll have to agree to the EULA in
            > the end. So I just agree in the beginning.
            > BTW, some contracts I barely read, I never read the contract I signed when
            > openning a bank account, or when getting a credit card.

            Intersting.

            >
            > > Rethinking it, we should actually write in the EULA what
            > > the program does
            > > ("This program will send itself to all people from which you
            > > have stored mail
            > > and then wipe your entire hard drive. By clicking 'I Accept',
            > > you hereby waive
            > > all claims against the manufacturers of this program.")
            >
            > You are getting more extreme. Last post you claimed that this worm won't
            > cause demage.

            OK, Let's forget about the damage part and just mention that the worm is
            an experiment and is developed for educational purposed only. Also, we shall
            not spread the worm, just post a link to it on /. and let someone else do
            the dirty work.

            > BTW, perhaps you should familiarize yourself with the concept of illegal
            > contracts.
            > Not every contract you sign is binding.
            > A person can't sell himself to slavery, and in many places the "no warranty"
            > clause is also non binding.

            OK, but I think in this case it's legal. Maybe add another precaution like
            a modal dialog box asking "Did you actually read the terms of the EULA?".
            Many people will even answer 'Yes' to that. We can then gather all data
            (click rates for those who pressed 'I Agree') at a central site.

            > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
            > > agree to an EULA? :)
            >
            > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
            > GPL is no warranty too.

            But in the case of OSS, you can actually read the code you're agreeing
            about. You can't do that with closed-source.

            > > Also, with open source you can check the program before agreeing to a
            > > disclaimer of all warranty or liablity.
            >
            > Sure... Right...
            > The same person who can't be bothered to read 50 lines of EULA will now read
            > 1000 lines of code?
            > Also, an open source program could be in a programming language you don't
            > know too well (emacs modules in lisp come to mind)

            But theoretically, it's possible. Just like a person who is not a lawer can
            hire one to understand a contract. He could hire a programmer to understand
            code. Also, OSS projects are community-checked to do the Right Thing.

            > > See my comment above. Most people don't think of EULAs as
            > > binding contracts.
            >
            > I agree, thats why they feel free to copy propietory programs around.
            > they just can't force themselves to take computers as a real serious thing.
            > But I doubt if the worm will make them change their mind, especially since
            > it may well be non-binding.

            Copying propietory programs is illegal by copyright law, and you need not
            agree to an EULA to be liable.

            > > > IANAL either, but it sounds interesting.
            > >
            > > So let's go... we should just remember to cover our backs...
            >
            > I'm a bit hesitant here.
            > I like the idea of seeing users agree to horrible things without even
            > knowing.
            > I dislike the idea of email worm, both in burden to the infrastructure and
            > in the breach of privacy involved when you read someones address book.
            >
            > Sorry, but I doubt if I'll carry it out.
            > I still want to do some sort of study on the subject of "what makes users
            > click", but I'll guess I'll do it the usual way with a usability lab.

            Oh, ok, nevermind.

            --
            This message was sent by Alon Altman (Psycho99@...) ICQ:1366540
            The RIGHT way to contact me is by e-mail. I am otherwise nonexistent :)
            --------------------------------------------------------------------------
            The most dangerous organization in America today is:
            (a) The KKK
            (b) The American Nazi Partylove
            (c) The Delta Frequent Flyer Club
          • Tzafrir Cohen
            ... Why? Maybe create a program that shows some anymation, but after a couple of seconds suddenly pops up a dialog of deleting all the file files on drive C:
            Message 5 of 17 , Sep 24 8:54 AM
            • 0 Attachment
              On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Alon Altman wrote:

              > OK, Let's forget about the damage part

              Why?

              Maybe create a program that shows some anymation, but after a couple of
              seconds suddenly pops up a dialog of "deleting all the file files on drive
              C:" and have the program start do some disk work (maybe creating and
              deleting files in the TEMP directory).

              --
              Tzafrir Cohen
              mailto:tzafrir@...
              http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
            • Nadav Har'El
              ... I have another practical joke story :) This time this is something I pulled off in high-school... While playing around with memory addresses and interrupts
              Message 6 of 17 , Sep 24 9:17 AM
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Sep 24, 2001, Tzafrir Cohen wrote about "RE: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA":
                > Maybe create a program that shows some anymation, but after a couple of
                > seconds suddenly pops up a dialog of "deleting all the file files on drive
                > C:" and have the program start do some disk work (maybe creating and
                > deleting files in the TEMP directory).

                I have another practical joke story :)
                This time this is something I pulled off in high-school...

                While playing around with memory addresses and interrupts on the IBM PS/2
                (or IBM compatible, or PC, or whatever we used to call them in these days)
                I discovered a way to light the hard-disk's LED without actually doing
                anything on it.

                So I wrote a joke "virus". Actually it wasn't a virus - it was a TSR
                ("Terminate Stay Resident", if anyone still remembers what those were) program
                which I had to run on the "victim"'s computer (e.g., insert it into
                AUTOEXEC.BAT) without him noticing.
                What this program did was to trap both the keyboard and timer interrupts.
                In one out of 100 keyboard interrupts, the program would randomly change the
                key the user pressed (this is quite annoying ;)). And after several hours of
                running, or after the user types in a chosen string (e.g., his name as part
                of a login process), the program would clear the screen, display a message like
                (again, I don't remember the exact text)

                You have a virus. Your hard disk is being formatted. If your reboot
                your computer now your hard-disk may be physically damaged!

                and the disk light would turn on. Obviously, nothing would really happen
                to the hard disk - that was never my style.

                Anybody else has good ideas for hacker-related practical jokes?

                --
                Nadav Har'El | Monday, Sep 24 2001, 7 Tishri 5762
                nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Unix is simple, but it takes a genius to
                http://nadav.harel.org.il |understand its simplicity.
              • Adi Stav
                On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote: [snip] ... The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore binding
                Message 7 of 17 , Sep 24 9:23 AM
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
                  [snip]
                  > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
                  > > agree to an EULA? :)
                  >
                  > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
                  > GPL is no warranty too.

                  The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore
                  "binding" regardless of whether you agree to it or not. The GPL says
                  as much inside it. Therefore, asking for users to click on the GPL
                  carries no legal weight, although it might well serve other purposes.

                  In spite of that, I am aware of Open Source licenses which do include
                  a contractual agreement. Additionally, there are rumors (from Bruce
                  Perens) that requesting such a contractual agreement is being
                  considered for GPL 3.0.
                • Nadav Har'El
                  ... I am not a lawyer, etc., etc., Are you sure there s such a term copyright license ? As far as I see it, these are two seperate things. Copyright says
                  Message 8 of 17 , Sep 24 9:50 AM
                  • 0 Attachment
                    On Mon, Sep 24, 2001, Adi Stav wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA":
                    > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
                    > [snip]
                    > > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
                    > > > agree to an EULA? :)
                    > >
                    > > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
                    > > GPL is no warranty too.
                    >
                    > The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore
                    > "binding" regardless of whether you agree to it or not. The GPL says

                    I am not a lawyer, etc., etc.,

                    Are you sure there's such a term "copyright license"? As far as I see it,
                    these are two seperate things. "Copyright" says that nobody can copy your
                    creation. "License" is like a contract that the other side doesn't actually
                    sign, that gives the other side the right to copy your creation anyway,
                    under certain conditions. I don't see why this is any different from an
                    unsigned contract or EULA, and why you think the GPL isn't a EULA too.

                    The GPL being a "contract" simply means: you don't have to agree to these
                    terms, but if you don't you are left with all the rights you had before
                    (and no additional rights) - and you didn't have any rights to copy, because
                    this program is copyrighted!

                    --
                    Nadav Har'El | Monday, Sep 24 2001, 8 Tishri 5762
                    nyh@... |-----------------------------------------
                    Phone: +972-53-245868, ICQ 13349191 |Computers are like air conditioners. Both
                    http://nadav.harel.org.il |stop working if you open windows.
                  • Omer Musaev
                    ... I recall one joke that was supposet to be nice one, but had been ruined. One of my co-eds was toying with ~/.Xresources, trying to russify as much of
                    Message 9 of 17 , Sep 24 9:51 AM
                    • 0 Attachment
                      > -----Original Message-----
                      > From: Nadav Har'El [mailto:nyh@...]
                      > Sent: Monday, September 24, 2001 6:18 PM
                      > To: hackers-il@yahoogroups.com
                      > Subject: Re: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA

                      > Anybody else has good ideas for hacker-related practical jokes?

                      I recall one joke that was supposet to be nice one, but had been ruined.

                      One of my co-eds was toying with ~/.Xresources, trying to russify as much of

                      X-windows. It came to us that we can rusify someone's netscape.
                      It was supposed to be a good joke, and we went all the way through
                      Netscape's
                      menus choosing the right word for an entity. The problem was that as in
                      hebrew,
                      almost no-one is using proper terms in native language, but rather some mix
                      of english
                      terms, jargon terms and analogies ( how many of you say "mehader", or
                      "mekasher" while
                      compiling a program? ).

                      After a successful compilation of those terms we put the pathced
                      ./.Xresources into
                      the student's ( who was friend of both of us ) account.

                      After a week or so, we asked the student what he thought of the joke.
                      Guess what?
                      HE DID NOT NOTICE the difference!!!

                      --
                      Omer Mussaev
                      Mercury Interactive / Topaz Prism R&D
                      Core Technologies team
                    • Tzafrir Cohen
                      ... FYI, Xlib allows you to load a seperate set of X resources for a program depending on the current locale settings. Mandrake actually have packages
                      Message 10 of 17 , Sep 24 1:01 PM
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Omer Musaev wrote:

                        > I recall one joke that was supposet to be nice one, but had been ruined.
                        >
                        > One of my co-eds was toying with ~/.Xresources, trying to russify as much of
                        >
                        > X-windows. It came to us that we can rusify someone's netscape.
                        > It was supposed to be a good joke, and we went all the way through
                        > Netscape's
                        > menus choosing the right word for an entity.

                        FYI, Xlib allows you to load a seperate set of X resources for a program
                        depending on the current locale settings. Mandrake actually have packages
                        netscape-fr, netscape-es , etc. that add
                        /etc/X11/{fr|es|...}/app-defaults/Netscape

                        You can also use $HOME/{fr|es|...}/Netscape to override the system
                        defaults.

                        With netscape you can indeed override all of their user interface (as well
                        as their keyboard shortcuts and a host of other stuff) using X resources.

                        --
                        Tzafrir Cohen
                        mailto:tzafrir@...
                        http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
                      • Adi Stav
                        ... IANAL too, but I understood things a little differently. Copyright means no one can copy your creation without a license. One doesn t agree to a license,
                        Message 11 of 17 , Sep 24 1:15 PM
                        • 0 Attachment
                          On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                          > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001, Adi Stav wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA":
                          > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
                          > > [snip]
                          > > > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
                          > > > > agree to an EULA? :)
                          > > >
                          > > > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
                          > > > GPL is no warranty too.
                          > >
                          > > The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore
                          > > "binding" regardless of whether you agree to it or not. The GPL says
                          >
                          > I am not a lawyer, etc., etc.,
                          >
                          > Are you sure there's such a term "copyright license"? As far as I see it,
                          > these are two seperate things. "Copyright" says that nobody can copy your
                          > creation. "License" is like a contract that the other side doesn't actually
                          > sign, that gives the other side the right to copy your creation anyway,
                          > under certain conditions. I don't see why this is any different from an
                          > unsigned contract or EULA, and why you think the GPL isn't a EULA too.
                          >
                          > The GPL being a "contract" simply means: you don't have to agree to these
                          > terms, but if you don't you are left with all the rights you had before
                          > (and no additional rights) - and you didn't have any rights to copy, because
                          > this program is copyrighted!

                          IANAL too, but I understood things a little differently. Copyright
                          means no one can copy your creation without a license. One doesn't
                          "agree" to a license, one either receives it or not, and if not,
                          then he simply isn't allowed anything without it. A license can go
                          all the way from "I'm not allowing anything" to "You can consider
                          my works uncopyrighted for all practical purposes", passing through
                          things like "You can distribute source code but not binaries" and
                          every conceivable subset of actions or non-actions that the license
                          can allow or disallow. And you don't have to agree to it, only to
                          receive it.

                          But a LICENSE cannot say things like "if you distribute my software,
                          you are not allowed to criticize it". You can either let someone
                          distribute or not distribute your software, but you cannot allow or
                          disallow criticism, because it was never in your power to disallow
                          criticism to start with. Similarly, you cannot demand and limit
                          people's USE of your software, because copyright law doesn't give
                          you the right to limit use, only distribution. What you CAN do is to
                          sign a CONTRACT, or an AGREEMENT, with some other party in which they
                          agree to use your software only in certain ways, in return for a
                          copyright license.

                          The problem here is that people aren't going to start scribbling
                          their signatures every time they feel a desire to agree never to
                          use Front Page 2000 for anti-Microsoft sites. Contract law allows
                          certain things to be traded in contracts that you sign implicitly
                          when you open the software's package or click a dialog box. But those
                          are still contracts. The difference is that they don't have the
                          full power of hand-signed contracts -- for example, I don't think
                          you can agree to pay the copyright holder in advance unless you
                          sign it in a more explicit way. What UCITA tries to do is to broaden
                          the range of actions that shrinkwrap/clickwrap licenses are allowed
                          to govern, which could potentially make Chen's "the only game in town"
                          into a version of "The Running Man" game.


                          So:

                          Copyright: the exclusive right to copy.

                          Copyright license: giving rights to copy to someone else too.

                          License Agreement: trading a copyright license for other things.

                          Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap License Agreement: a limited version of a license
                          agreement that doesn't require an actual signature.
                        • Tzafrir Cohen
                          ... [ snip ] ... Here is what someone who _is_ a lawyer wrote about gpl (Basically the same as what Adi detailed above):
                          Message 12 of 17 , Sep 24 2:00 PM
                          • 0 Attachment
                            On Mon, 24 Sep 2001, Adi Stav wrote:

                            > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 06:50:57PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
                            > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001, Adi Stav wrote about "Re: [hackers-il] Idea: Worm with EULA":
                            > > > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
                            > > > [snip]
                            > > > > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
                            > > > > > agree to an EULA? :)
                            > > > >
                            > > > > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
                            > > > > GPL is no warranty too.
                            > > >
                            > > > The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore
                            > >> "binding" regardless of whether you agree to it or not. The GPL says
                            > >
                            > > I am not a lawyer, etc., etc.,
                            > >
                            > > Are you sure there's such a term "copyright license"? As far as I see it,
                            > > these are two seperate things. "Copyright" says that nobody can copy your
                            > > creation. "License" is like a contract that the other side doesn't actually
                            > > sign, that gives the other side the right to copy your creation anyway,
                            > > under certain conditions. I don't see why this is any different from an
                            > > unsigned contract or EULA, and why you think the GPL isn't a EULA too.
                            > >
                            > > The GPL being a "contract" simply means: you don't have to agree to these
                            > > terms, but if you don't you are left with all the rights you had before
                            > > (and no additional rights) - and you didn't have any rights to copy, because
                            > > this program is copyrighted!
                            >
                            > IANAL too, but I understood things a little differently.

                            [ snip ]
                            >
                            > So:
                            >
                            > Copyright: the exclusive right to copy.
                            >
                            > Copyright license: giving rights to copy to someone else too.
                            >
                            > License Agreement: trading a copyright license for other things.
                            >
                            > Shrinkwrap/Clickwrap License Agreement: a limited version of a license
                            > agreement that doesn't require an actual signature.

                            Here is what someone who _is_ a lawyer wrote about gpl (Basically the
                            same as what Adi detailed above):
                            http://linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2001-09-18-013-20-OP-LL

                            --
                            Tzafrir Cohen
                            mailto:tzafrir@...
                            http://www.technion.ac.il/~tzafrir
                          • Gilad Ben-Yossef
                            ... IANL, but I think we got a little mix up here: Copyright to a piece of work, such as software belongs to the person who wrote the program or paied for the
                            Message 13 of 17 , Sep 25 11:34 PM
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Adi Stav wrote:
                              >
                              > On Mon, Sep 24, 2001 at 04:07:28PM +0200, Chen Shapira wrote:
                              > [snip]
                              > > > When did you see an open source product forcing you to
                              > > > agree to an EULA? :)
                              > >
                              > > They usually ask me to agree to a GPL or other license.
                              > > GPL is no warranty too.
                              >
                              > The GPL is a copyright license and not a contract, and is therefore
                              > "binding" regardless of whether you agree to it or not. The GPL says
                              > as much inside it. Therefore, asking for users to click on the GPL
                              > carries no legal weight, although it might well serve other purposes.
                              >

                              IANL, but I think we got a little mix up here:

                              Copyright to a piece of work, such as software belongs to the person who
                              wrote the program or paied for the copyright (such as the employer of
                              the person who wrote the program).
                              No other person or legal entity has the right to make use (copy, use,
                              distribute) the copyrighted work (let's leave fair use behind for a
                              second).
                              This is true for ANY software, closed, open or free.

                              The EULA is a *contract* that you sign or agree to, which states that in
                              exchange for you complying to specific terms the copyright holder has
                              set forth (be it to give him money and not reverse engineer the program
                              or the terms in he GPL or what have you) you will get a premission from
                              the copyright holder to use the program (usually) or to extra stuff with
                              it (e.g. GPL and friends). This contract is called a license.

                              You don't have to agree to a license, jsut like you don't have to sign
                              any contract, but without doing so, you don't get the copyright holder
                              premission to do whatever it is the EULA says you can do if you agree.

                              The same mechnism is at work whether this is the MS-Word EULA or the
                              GPL, only the terms of the contract are different. Simple, isn't it?


                              Gilad.
                            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.