IG: I think (correct me if I'm wrong on this lukedashjr) he's getting at the idea that the software isn't open source,
Software can be open source and still have an immoral license. Though you could always violate the unjust Copyright Law in this case by ignoring the license.
Generally, morally acceptable licenses are termed 'free software'-- note, not 'gratis' as 'free' is often [ab]used as, but 'free' as in 'freedom'.
and is therefore immoral since essentially it's your property, be it freely given to you as "freeware/free download" by Macromedia, or you bought it in the store.
I wouldn't quite say something is immoral because it is your property, but maybe it was a misconstruction of your sentence...
Therefore, it's your property, but Macromedia will not release the source code so that you can then modify it according to your tastes. For example, I just bought the book "Iota Unum." I have this book, and the pages themselves could be considered the source code. Now, as it's my book, I have the moral right to underline passages, tear out pages I don't like, etc.
That would be the reason (or a everyday-English translation of it, anyway) it's immoral.
Note that you could also translate the book (software equivalent would be porting the program to a different API), continue it (there are many examples of this in the Star Wars area; software equiv. is adding features), or adapt it to another medium such as video (software equiv: refactor the UI).
However, with the software, you can't do that, because you don't have the source.
Correct.
It seems to me that you consent to use it, therefore, you agree to the company's terms.
You do not need the company's approval to use software, nor should you. Do you need the approval of the manufacteror to stand on your chair to reach something on a high shelf?
In another thread, Marisa was telling all of us about her dog, and how if she didn't show it by the time it was a certain age, she was required by the contract she signed to have it neutered. She agreed to the contract, therefore she is obligated to neuter it if the situation ends up requiring it. I see this as the same way; you buy/download freely the software, and when you install it you are required to assent to an EULA (End User Liscense Agreement) to continue.
Note that even under current US law, EULAs are not enforceable. On the topic... At best, this simply means the companies are insisting on immoral terms. Would you find it at all acceptable if a chair producing company said that each person to sit on it needed to pay every single time they sat? I doubt it.
In this EULA, among other things, some of which are objectionable but nobody knows about because they don't read them, it probably says something to the effect that you have no rights to decompile, disassemble, reverse-engineer, or otherwise modify the source code or application which you are installing.
Except that you
do have those rights and they cannot tell you otherwise. It is no better than a government overstepping its limited authority.
Therefore, since by accepting "yes" or "accept" or "I agree" on the EULA, you submitted to the contract,
A few issues:
- Those under 18 cannot participate in contracts
- There are ways to manually install a program without using the install application
and consequently have no rights to mess with them.
Rather, this should be phrased "and consequently have surrendered your rights to modify them."
If you used a hack of some kind to get around hitting "I accept," then you would still be forbidden from doing it because you didn't explicitly agree to the contract inherent in the software,
There is no contract inherent in any piece of information.
therefore your legal right to install and use it would be null and void,
You have a natural right to manipulate the information. The legal system can attempt to deny you this right, but it does so unjustly and outside of its limited authority. Such laws should not be obeyed.
and it would be essentially "stolen," even if you paid for the software.
The verb "steal" when applied to information relates to taking credit for something you have not done. You cannot use property-"steal" and apply it to non-property.
