"Jon Kyme" <jrk(_at_)merseymail(_dot_)com> wrote:
"license" smells of contract law - IANAL. I dare say a lawyer might have a
view on this.
On Tue, 23 Dec 2003 05:44, Alan DeKok wrote:
Exactly. In many cases, "license" is a synonym for "permission".
In law, "license" means "permission". Having a license literally means you
have been given permission.
Software licenses are commonly also attempting to be contracts. Whether they
actually become contracts depends on a lot of factors, including how you
purchased the software, what you have done since receiving it, whether you
have relied on it to do something you would not otherwise have been able to
do, and which state and country you are in.
As for the subject of this thread, it seems to me that the comparison between
protocols per se is misguided and although I haven't read the whole thread,
I'm surprised the topic has lasted this long. Spam (not SPAM, the meat
product) is worse in SMTP because it's the protocol that allows the spammer
to put the message in the face of the target. Change the protocol without
changing the very nature of email, and spammers will still find ways to
Take, for example, the MS network popup messaging protocol (whose name I don't
recall). It also put the message in the face of the targets. It remained
unabused for a long time because it's a low profile protocol that spammers
simply hadn't considered. When they realised it was there, they started
exploiting it rapidly. As it happened, the protocol wasn't very important, so
it was either jettisonned entirely or blocked at routers in most places.
Troy Rollo Chairman, CAUBE.AU
asrg(_at_)troy(_dot_)rollo(_dot_)name Executive Director,
Asrg mailing list