Simple truth: The owner can be both owner and user. But a user is not
necessarily the owner.
This truth has nothing to do with
licensing.
Winded discussion begins:
I present 3
different ways of trying to clarify user != owner and the fact that such a
concept has nothing to do with licensing.
Discussion
point 1:
If you travel your local community transit - you are a user.
Does that mean you own the bus/train you are riding in? Didn't think so unless
you bought stock and it's a publicly traded
service.
Discussion point 2:
You - as owner -
decide to lend your car to someone. They - as user - change out the engine
putting in a much cheaper engine while they install your engine in their
vehicle. Is that acceptable? Somehow I don't think so unless - of course - you
gave the individual permission to do exactly that.
As shown in both
discussion points: the concept has absolutely nothing to do with any particular
license terms.
Discussion point 3 (if necessary, it
goes much deeper into the detail):
worthy restriction of your
nephew's access rights
This part is simply proper basic security
principles. The owner has the right to decide what software goes on the
computer - as an example, this concept is applied equally to every personally
owned item in my humble opinion.
Where I work, the company owns the
computer and has the right to decide what software is installed. I do not have
any say - with the exception of what authority they give me - to decide what
software I will install.
For example: I certainly have the right
to decide I wish to risk the wrath of the Law and crack into the UN's command
centre. But I certainly do not have the right to decide to push that risk onto
my employer. So installing software to deliberately attempt such cracking would
not only be illegal, it's against basic security principles. Of course, I focus
on the installation concept. It goes without saying the cracking concept also
applies equally.
The same is true for my computer at home. When the
nephew is using my computer, he has the right to use what I've installed
with the authority I have granted him.
To give him root would be to -
effectively - give him everything which I will not do. He could inadvertently
wipe out all my personal data and I'm not willing to accept that risk let alone
any higher risk such as installing viral/spy software (inadvertently or
otherwise).
On the other hand, he buys himself a computer and the same
security rule applies:
I am only granted the access and authority he grants
me! It belongs to him!
As you can see: my statement above has nothing to
do with any particular software EULA/License and everything to do with:
Who
should have the proper authority to decide what software is installed on their
device!
And it's not the user... or the owner of the software, it's clearly
the owner of the device. Linus Torvalds does not have the authority to tell me
I will install Linux on my device. I do not have the authority to install/use
Linux on my device except by his terms.
the implication that you
might permit somebody else to use software they own on your
computer
No implication at all! If I've installed software from
John Doe (who I know) on my computer (remember, I decide what actually goes on
my device) and I decide to let him use my computer (I decide who is authorized
on my device) then yea:
I could "permit somebody else to use software they
own on my" device!
But don't confuse that with:
I won't permit somebody
else to install software they own on my device!
Even if that software is
licensed under the GPL - it is not acceptable to me they decide what's installed
on my device. This concept has nothing at all to do with the license
terms.
:)
There's a world of difference in those two statements
and the heart of the concept they convey!
To use a device is not
the equivalent of modifying said device. Only the owner has the right to
modify the device and decide who else has such authority. And to what extent to
grant such authority. Anyone the owner allows to use said device can do so with
the restrictions/authority the owner places on said device.
Put in the
context of Microsft:
An OEM may default install Microsoft on a computer I
purchase.
If I choose to accept such software, then I must do so by the
rules governing said software.
If I choose not to accept such software,
then as the owner of the device I have the right to wipe said software from the
system and install the software of my choice!
If the device is sold to
me with the restriction I'll never modify the software: then I simply won't
purchase said device to begin with!
Simple! And yet, a very profound
difference between "user" and "owner".
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
