tad@killer.UUCP (Tad Marko) (07/10/87)
In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, > >for about $100.00. > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. > > > >Tom > >------- > >UUCP: ihnp4\ > > \killer!toma > > infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ > >Tom Armistead > > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own > the magnetic or other media on which the SOFTWARE is originally or subse- > quently recorded or fixed, but Microsoft retains title and ownership of the > SOFTWARE recorded on the original disk and all subsequent copies... In no > event may you transfer, assign, rent, lease, sell, or otherwise dispose of > the SOFTWARE..." > > --Cy-- cy@ashtate.UUCP (First of all, I know this is in the wrong group, but I want to leave it where it started.) Yeah, but... Personally I have a problem with this policy. What purpose does this have? If I buy a copyrighted book, I am free to resell it whenever I want. Why not software? It is a valuable piece of merchandise like anything else, and selling does not create an illicit copy. Ford does not sell cars that only the original buyer may own. A program is no less a piece of property than a car. Unless I misunderstand, one could legally sell his or her copy of Turbo C under the license agreement. Why can't other companies adopt such a simple and sensical policy? I think such a policy is rude, obnoxious, and just plain wrong. Unfortunately, I must put up with several pieces of software with such license policies because I need the software. GACK! I feel better now. Tad -- Tad Marko ..!ihnp4!killer!tad || ..!ihnp4!alamo!infoswx!ntvax!tad UNIX Connection BBS AT&T 3B2 North Texas State U. VAX 11/780 "Hi there!" -- Peter Gabriel in "Big Time"
toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) (07/10/87)
> In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: > > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: > > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, > > >for about $100.00. > > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you > > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. > > > > > >Tom > > >------- > > >UUCP: ihnp4\ > > > \killer!toma > > > infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ > > >Tom Armistead > > > > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for > > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own > > [ text deleted ] Well, I was the one who originally posted this, so here I go... ( Asbestos suit on) I did not the license agreement to MSC, I sold the magnetic media and the paper in the manuals for an unGodly amount and that's that! I think that somewhere in the legal system that one would find that this could be gotten around as in the above stated case. And that if I did something Illegal in selling this Plastic and Paper product (and somehow forgot to erase the gunk contained upon them, Let 'em come and get me!!!) Something else that I thought kind of interesting, when I sent back my license agreement to MS, I scratched aout quite a few lines on the agreement and sent a signed copy of that agreement back to them at leaste a year and ahalf ago and never heard a word from them... ( Asbestos suit of, lawyer hired...) Disclaimer: these are my words, thoughts and keystrokes, influenced by powers uncontrolable by man or any other earthly force. Tom UUCP: ihnp4\ \killer!toma infoswx!convex!dj3b1/ Tom Armistead
stevem@fai.UUCP (Steve Minneman) (07/21/87)
In article <1119@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >> In article <305@ashtate.UUCP>, cy@ashtate.UUCP (Cy Shuster) writes: >> > In article <1060@killer.UUCP> toma@killer.UUCP (Tom Armistead) writes: >> > >Now that I have Turbo C, I have sold my copy of MSC 4.0, >> > >for about $100.00. >> > >Take the money you made selling MSC 4.0 and if you work it right, you >> > >will be able to buy Turbo C, MIX C and C trace. >> > > >> > >Tom ... >> > Just a reminder: most software is not *sold* to you, but *licensed* for >> > your use only. The MS License Agreement reads: "As the LICENSEE, you own >> > [ text deleted ] > >Well, I was the one who originally posted this, so here I go... >( Asbestos suit on) >I did not the license agreement to MSC, I sold the magnetic media and the paper >in the manuals for an unGodly amount and that's that! That's entirely legal -- the buyer just has no license, and therefore has no right to USE the software. >... > >Something else that I thought kind of interesting, when I sent back my license >agreement to MS, I scratched aout quite a few lines on the agreement and >sent a signed copy of that agreement back to them at leaste a year and ahalf >ago and never heard a word from them... > Doesn't mean a thing. Actually signing and sending back the license is not required. Note that the package containing the software was shrink-wrapped and labeled with the words "By opening this package, you accept the terms and conditions of the license agreement," or words to that effect. -- Steven A. Minneman (Fujitsu America Inc, San Jose, Ca) !seismo!amdahl!fai!stevem The best government is no government at all.
ejablow@dasys1.UUCP (Eric Robert Jablow) (07/26/87)
In article <634@fai.UUCP> stevem@fai.UUCP (Steve Minneman) writes: > > [Much deleted] > >Doesn't mean a thing. Actually signing and sending back the license is not >required. Note that the package containing the software was shrink-wrapped >and labeled with the words "By opening this package, you accept the terms and >conditions of the license agreement," or words to that effect. > Actually, shrink-wrap "licenses" have been ruled invalid in many cases all across the country. According to the law in almost every state is a provision making the Unified Commercial Code (UCC) the law. Violations of the UCC can render licenses and contracts invalid. These shrink-wrap "licenses" haved been ruled to violate the code, much the same as a warranty limitation not fully disclosed before purchase, or any other unusual contract provision. The buyer must be given the chance to inspect the material unencumbered by such unconsciable limitations. If the UCC is violated, the contract reverts to the state's standard rules. I am not a lawyer; I would therefore appreciate a lawyer's commenting on this matter. >The best government is no government at all. That comment should be discussed in talk.politics.theory, same as the "society" discussions in the Jury Duty articles. -- Eric Jablow {allegra,philabs,cmcl2}!phri\ Big Electric Cat Public Unix {bellcore,cmcl2}!cucard!dasys1!ejablow New York, NY, USA Copyright 1987 First Category Press