I have not signed, nor do I intend to sign, any such agreement.

Considering all the shit transgaming did, I see no ethical problems with pirating their software. If you have done so then I'm certainly not criticizing you.

They used the code from wine whilst giving hardly anything back to the wine community. They had the right to do this because of the MIT license but it was very immoral and unethical. And from what I've heard there are many problems with cedega (if you pay for something it had better work).

When someone offered to maintain a package for debian (the license allowed them to do this with the source from the CVS) they received threats saying if they tried it transgaming would instantly release a license forbidding it.

This is about admitted software pirates stealing Half-Life 2, not cedega and my main point is pretty much "Well, there's no linux binaries so that means they suck and therefore i will acquire an illegal copy of this game and that's ok" and "well I only play it every so often so therefore it's not worth my money" are wrong attitudes.

Where Da filez At?

If you install the game, you accept the agreement.

They're down at the store
Just a short walk away

Not necessarily. I install games by simply extracting the CAB files. EULAs have no legal standing: http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html.

I am not claiming that the nullity of EULAs means it is legal to infringe copyrights. If that were true, the GPL would be void. The EULA, however, has nothing to do with granting rights: it only takes them away—in stark contrast to the GPL, whose sole purpose is to grant additional rights. Without the copyright owner's consent—in the form of, say, the GPL—it is illegal to distribute any material. Valve needs no EULA to make my redistribution illegal.

Now: are you intending to keep ignoring my question? Since you so vigorously defend Intellectual Property, I am lead to believe that you have an answer.

You are now using other methods to get around the contract which is still in violation.

Quote:

I am not claiming that the nullity of EULAs means it is legal to infringe copyrights. If that were true, the GPL would be void. The EULA, however, has nothing to do with granting rights: it only takes them away—in stark contrast to the GPL, whose sole purpose is to grant additional rights. Without the copyright owner's consent—in the form of, say, the GPL—it is illegal to distribute any material. Valve needs no EULA to make my redistribution illegal. Now: are you intending to keep ignoring my question? Since you so vigorously defend Intellectual Property, I am lead to believe that you have an answer.

You're wrong because it illegal to steal software and if the law says it's wrong then it is wrong until it says differently. You're not the one to judge which laws are wrong.

I am not defending the theft of software, which is surely immoral. I am defending its redistribution.

Resdistribution is allowing the crime to continue.

Certainly.

So then you admit that you are part of crime and it is wrong? Sounds like you and your fellow software pirates need to learn some morality.

I admit without reservation that I am a part of crime—but since I do it, I obviously consider it right. Why do you consider the Law the ultimate arbiter of morality?

So anything you do is ultimately right? How does it feel to live by egotism alone? Theft is wrong because the law says it is so, and the teachings of the One Lord J-sus Chr-st are what our laws are based on.

No. Anything I do, I consider right. I cannot imagine the wretched mind of someone for whom this does not hold. Since you consider this stance evil, I conclude that you act contrary to your own reason and do things that you consider wrong.

It live not by egotism, but by egoism—and it feels great.