doug@mathel.ncsu.edu (Doug James) (01/04/90)
Purely hypothetical question:
I wish to comply with both the letter and spirit of software licensing
agreements and copyright restrictions. I buy a copy of GreatSoftware,
version 1.0, for the going rate of $250. Two years later, I pay $50 for
an upgrade to version 2.0, which retails for $300.
May I give away my version 1.0? May I sell it? To put it another way,
do I own two copies of the software, or a single copy in two different
flavors?
--doug james
doug%ncsuvx.ncsu.edujohnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/05/90)
In article <1990Jan4.152944.8744@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> doug%mathel@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Doug James) writes: >I wish to comply with both the letter and spirit of software licensing >agreements and copyright restrictions. Then you'd better not ever use your software on a computer, look at some of the tiny type on many shrink-wrap licenses. There is little reason to believe that shrink-wrap licenses are binding on the purchaser and plenty of reason to think that they're not, both because the purchaser has no opportunity to negotiate the terms (a so-called contract of adhesion) and practically because no sucessful suit based on a shrink-wrap license has ever been brought. I'm no more in favor of software piracy than anyone else, but believe that the only reasonable legal protection for retail software is copyright. >May I give away my version 1.0 [after I buy an upgrade to 2.0?] An excellent question. It seems to me that since you paid for 2.0, you now own two separable documents and are free to dispose of each independently. If they gave away the update it might be possible to claim that the update was in some sense part of the original product. This sort of thing can keep lawyers dancing on the head of a pin forever, there's not much more to say than to do what you think is right. The law is as yet totally unclear. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."
peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell) (01/05/90)
In article <1990Jan4.152944.8744@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> doug%mathel@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Doug James) writes: >Purely hypothetical question: >I buy a copy of GreatSoftware, version 1.0, for the going rate of $250. >Two years later, I pay $50 for an upgrade to version 2.0, >which retails for $300. >May I give away my version 1.0? May I sell it? To put it another way, >do I own two copies of the software, or a single copy in two different >flavors? Interesting question. Speaking as a developer, I would say that you own one right-to-use (RTU) license, which has been upgraded from RTU v1.0 to RTU v2.0, with the additional RTU any previous versions you might have acquired legally. Since continued legal possesion of v1.0 would be a side effect of your RTU v2.0, you would not be able to perform any transfer of ownership (for money or otherwise) of v1.0. Some companies might go so far as to request/require that you return v1.0. I would not be surprised if the update arrived with some sort of license (or ammendment to your existing license) spelling out the status of v1.0.
paul@sun600.UUCP (Paul E. Black) (01/05/90)
In article <1990Jan4.152944.8744@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> doug%mathel@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu (Doug James) writes: >I buy a copy of GreatSoftware, >version 1.0, for the going rate of $250. Two years later, I pay $50 for >an upgrade to version 2.0, which retails for $300. > >May I give away my version 1.0? May I sell it? The company wants things to work out as if you bought GreatSoftware version 2.0 at the going rate. Therefore the upgrade is an exchange. Ethically you are not justified in giving away or selling your copy of version 1.0. Of course, if the company clearly states in the upgrade that it considers you to have two copies, getting rid of version 1.0 is fine. (The company may be very kind to those that supported it in the early years.) Some companies just send the new version to spare the hassle (and your lost time) of a physical exchange. Imagine that version 2.0 is just a new library. When your software is "upgraded," you have two libraries but only one copy of the code. Clearly there is no separate copy of version 1.0. Paul E. Black | UUCP: ...{ames,uunet,amdahl,sun}!oliveb!cirrusl!paul CIRRUS LOGIC, Inc. | Internet: paul%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com 1463 Centre Pointe Dr. | Voice: +1 408 945-8305 extension 210 Milpitas, California 95035 USA
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) (01/05/90)
In article <491@thirdi.UUCP> peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell) writes: >[In response to a question re giving away the old version when you get >an update:] >Interesting question. Speaking as a developer, I would say that you >own one right-to-use (RTU) license, ... Ah, but in the absence of a signed license agreement, there's little reason to believe that there is any license at all. (As I previously noted, shrink wrap licenses appear to be unenforcable.) This means that we're relying on copyright law, and it's hard to think of an analogous case where a new version of a document is considered to be inseparable from the old version. Seems to me that the best solution is for developers to make sure that the new version is so much better that nobody wants the old version any more. -- John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650 johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl "Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."
rowland@hpavla.HP.COM (Fred Rowland) (01/05/90)
It's interesting that there's such a lack of agreement on this issue, even among software developers who would be expected to resist the idea of a "for free" earlier copy. I'm a user, not a developer, and I would feel uncomfortable treating the original as a separate possession. The license might help if it isn't legal to the point of being incomprehensible. If it's a right to use license, I would feel that one such license should exist for each working copy of the software. If it's a "you own it" license, I'd look for specific wording about making copies. On a related matter, what is the status of software that was legally purchased from a company which has since gone out of business? And what if you bought a site license and are heavily dependent on that software? There's nobody to buy copies from, and nobody to buy a site license add-on from, so what do you do? Fred Rowland Hewlett-Packard/Avondale Division
toma@tekgvs.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (01/05/90)
It depends on the license. In general, since it is an upgrade and not a new purchase you can't sell/give away the old version, but can keep it (you might find that you like the old version better!) Most companies these days will spell out what you can do. - If, instead of an upgrade, you are given a discount on the purchase of a new product, you can sell your old copy. - Some companies tell you that you can give away your old copy (it is much like advertising -- if the recipient likes it, maybe he/she will purchase the new version.) I've heard Borland does this, but I can't vouch for it. - Some companies require you to send back the old version (particularly the distribution disks). - Some companies require that you destroy the old version within a certain number of days. (I believe Lotus does this) - A novel twist -- WordPerfect Corp's latest WordPerfect upgrade comes with a certificate allowing transfer of your old copy (must be completely intact) to any high school without charge. The school gets a new license number and free support. A superb idea! Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
brnstnd@stealth.acf.nyu.edu (01/06/90)
In article <1990Jan4.182928.3154@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us> johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine) writes: > There is little reason to > believe that shrink-wrap licenses are binding on the purchaser and plenty of > reason to think that they're not, both because the purchaser has no > opportunity to negotiate the terms (a so-called contract of adhesion) and > practically because no sucessful suit based on a shrink-wrap license has > ever been brought. If I remember correctly, a Louisiana company won a shrink-wrap license suit. Then a Federal court reversed the decision, ruling that such licenses are unenforceable. So now there is case law establishing that it's legal to give someone a copy of all your software. For some strange reason, software publishers are returning to copyrights. > I'm no more in favor of software piracy than anyone > else, but believe that the only reasonable legal protection for retail > software is copyright. And licenses don't make any sense for free software. The point of licenses is to specify exact conditions upon what the recipient can do; but limited copyrights achieve this goal much more effectively. Copyrights have just one disadvantage: it's impossible to stop someone from using the copyrighted work once he has a copy of it. ---Dan
amull@Morgan.COM (Andrew P. Mullhaupt) (01/07/90)
There is a thread here about if it's "OK" to give away old copies of software, and lots of people are saying that Legally, it doesn't look that the developer can sue you if you break the shrink-wrap license. OK, fine. Is it then still Ethical to do this? Isn't there an implication of bad faith on the part of someone who agrees to a license they fully intend to circumvent or subvert? I have to admit that I don't entirely sympathize with the developer's point of view (I think licenses should have an expiration of about one or two years on 'em - or else support should be in perpetuity as well!) but I'll also have to admit that I've used Borland's "book model" license by buying new copies instead of upgrades so I can hand the old versions down to my brother with a clear conscience. Their prices are low enough that I can afford to do this. Lotus, on the other hand entirely prevents this. (Word Perfect now costs less than Lotus Manuscript. Who's kidding who here?) Later, Andrew Mullhaupt