On Sun, June 10, 2018 6:19 pm, Keith Keller wrote:
On 2018-06-08, Valeri Galtsev galtsev@kicp.uchicago.edu wrote:
Frank, I 100% agree with you. The only case with spoofed MAC address and license that may have chance to stand in court will be if all below are true:
- the company issued perpetual license.
- the company does not exist
Based on what's written below, it seems like the company does in fact still exist, and that therefore the organization trying to spoof MACs may be violating their license. I hope the company which sells the program doesn't read this mailing list.
Keith, you as well as Frank originally and following Frank I all agree that the case described in this thread may constitute violation of license agreement. So, for the OP it may be advantageous think everything over...
That is why I tried to draw hypothetical set of conditions I under which if all if all are met, it may not fall under violation. To show how narrow could be the case in which it may, just may not be a violation. You trimmed away several other conditions that are necessary as well. Anyway, as we all agree, we should comply license agreement, or not use software at all if we can not comply for one reason or another.
Valeri
It's apparently a very good molecular modeling program, and to be real, my users tell me that the company that bought the original company wants, and I'm not making this up, $15k US to generate a license for a new workstation. And there's two? three? workstations that run it.
And this is a US gov't agency (civilian secrot). Budget? We don' need no steenkeen budgets, the Magic Hand of the Market will produce all the results we need.....
--keith
-- kkeller@wombat.san-francisco.ca.us
CentOS mailing list CentOS@centos.org https://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Valeri Galtsev Sr System Administrator Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics Kavli Institute for Cosmological Physics University of Chicago Phone: 773-702-4247 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++