"Our constitutional process at work. Which goes to show you: If you want to change something, do it within the framework of the law. Not by outright theft."
Somehow I doubt the Libberoids would enjoy life in their Perfect World, where shrink-wrap licenses where prohibited.
I know I wouldn't be happy "buying" a box of software only to discover that inside the box is a sheet of paper with a contract printed on it, which instructed me to read, sign (two witnesses and notary), and return via registered mail, and after the executed contract was received, my CD would be mailed out.
Bzzzz. Tiemann et all are proposing legislation, not theft. I know Perens, I've talked to Tiemann, I may not always agree with them but they are honest actors, intent on doing the right thing. They are like gun owners, determined to be law-abiding but slowly being driven into a corner by a legislative machine intent on pandering to special interests without a care for the Constitution.
It's pretty obvious that copyright and patent were intended as a compromise clearly securing limited rights for creators. Absolute rights would stifle the progress of civilization one way, no rights another. Many people feel the DMCA (unfairly and fairly) tilted the situation firmly in the direction of absolute rights. Microsoft (and RIAA, MPAA, etc) does not act honestly in seeking to criminalize fair use and stifle dissenting viewpoints as un-american. If they want to impose contracts securing indefinite rights with terms revisable at will, all protected by force of criminal law, I expect there will be trouble....