[c-nsp] IOS pirating requests

[Tony Varriale]

I would disagree with what's mostly here.  But, I'm guessing both of us 
aren't lawyers.

I do know what IS SOP these days.  Buy the gear 3rd party then either the 
seller or buyer downloads and loads up some later software and/or different 
feature set.

That, I know for sure, is illegal unless Cisco offers the code fix for a 
security issue.  And, the people that are practicing this as SOP can't spell 
security.

tv
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" <tedm at toybox.placo.com>
To: "Asbjorn Hojmark - Lists" <lists at hojmark.org>; "'Daniel Hooper'" 
<dhooper at emerge.net.au>; "'Jon Lewis'" <jlewis at lewis.org>
Cc: <cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net>
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2008 3:58 AM
Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests


>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net
>> [mailto:cisco-nsp-bounces at puck.nether.net]On Behalf Of Asbjorn Hojmark -
>> Lists
>> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2008 1:23 PM
>> To: 'Daniel Hooper'; 'Jon Lewis'
>> Cc: cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
>> Subject: Re: [c-nsp] IOS pirating requests
>>
>>
>> > But if you send me the chassis as well as the IOS and no money
>> > changes hand's it's technically not pirating.
>>
>> Well, that depends on who you ask... It's pretty clear from the
>> license that the software does *not* follow the hardware to a 3rd
>> party. If you sell the box, you have to buy a 'transfer license'.
>>
>> (Wether that'll be legal in other countries is another matter).
>>
>
> That has never been tested in a court and a Cisco buyer is not
> required to sign a contract that would obligate them to such an
> act.  In fact, if anything, the courts
> have ruled in the few cases that have come up regarding used
> software being sold, that it is illegal for a software vendor to
> place a purchaser under such a restriction.  In short, if you
> go buy a copy of Windows and use it for a few years then sell it,
> (assuming that you have not of course used the license as the
> basis for an upgrade, and that it's not an OEM license) that
> you and the buyer are perfectly legal.  As for OEM software,
> this travels with the device.  As much as Microsoft and other
> vendors would like to have the software license of Windows
> 'untied' from the hardware post-purchase, if you sell a PC you
> bought with Windows preloaded, the license for the preload goes
> with the PC.
>
> This also works for cell phones, DVD players, automobiles,
> microwave ovens, hybrid key phone systems, etc. all of which
> have embedded computers with software running.  The manufacturer
> can only deny you new updates or cut you out of support if
> you get the item from the secondary market - they cannot win
> a suit against you for merely buying and owning the item that
> has the software on it that was loaded on it when it came from
> the factory.
>
> Cisco I am sure is perfectly aware of all of this.  It is undoubtedly
> why they put the oldest and archaic IOS on their products possible.
> For example we just sold a recent 2800 to a customer - running an
> OLDER version of IOS  (12.4.1 I believe) than what was in it's ROM -
> this was a brand-new, never-opened, direct from Ingram Micro router -
> it was an IOS image that has been deferred years ago and long since
> covered under Cisco's free "security upgrade replacement"
>
> Clearly, pulling such a stunt gives Cisco much leeway to argue in
> a court that someone isn't entitled to a more current IOS version
> because the "official OEM IOS version" that was shipped with the
> router is going to be older than -anything- that was ever available
> for download from the Cisco website.  Thus Cisco could make the argument
> in a court that while a buyer of a used 2800 might have a legal right
> to posses the 2800 with IOS 12.4.1 loaded, (because that was what
> was on it when the router shipped from the factory) that is as new
> an IOS as they can have, simply by merely purchasing the box.
>
> You really need to be careful here.  Keep in mind
> that for the last decade software vendors have been scruplously
> avoiding having shrinkwrap licenses tested in court, there's not been
> a single court case of a software vendor (like Microsoft or Cisco)
> suing anyone for violating a shrinkwrap license that they did not
> explicitly sign and agree to abide by.  Yet there's millions of
> devices sold every year that have shrinkwrap licenses on them.
> Most of what you read from the software vendors is FUD and
> speculation in this area.  And, I will also remind you, there is
> no law that states that Cisco or any other software vendor MUST
> tell the truth with regards to contracts or their interpretation.
>
> It is SOP for most companies to put illegal, rediculous, and
> unenforceable terms in their contracts, then have their sales
> guys claim those terms are legally binding.  In writing even.
> Naturally, contract law being what it is, if there is ever a
> legal dispute, this will be held against them by the judge -
> but they do this because they know the vast majority of people
> automatically assume that just because it's written down in
> the contract that it must be legal.
>
> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> cisco-nsp mailing list  cisco-nsp at puck.nether.net
> https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp
> archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/