jpm@Bnl.ARPA (04/03/84)
In reply to Seiler@Mit-XX: >Even supposing that the support for two machines costs no >more than for one (what if they are different machines >running different versions of the code), If the machines are running different versions of the code then it is two different programs and they would have to be bought separately in the first place. I am talking about the same exact program on two or more machines. >why shouldn't a software house want to get paid for each >copy of its software that is run? Is that greed? I feel that is greed when the two copies might be run in two rooms right next to each other. >If so, then what word describes your attitude of refusing >to pay them? You might call me cheap. I don't have unlimited funds and choose not to spend money on something I already have.~ >Or when you said that you were "forced to sign" the >agreement, did you mean that two tough guys came over and >beat you into submission? Gimme a break! Of course nobody is going to threaten to break my legs if I don't sign, but I don't have the time or skill to write all the software I need to use (Not everybody can be an RMS who may spend half of his life building the tools needed to get something done during the last half. I'm not knocking RMS, I agree with what he is doing, but I don't have the same high set of principles that he does.). The reality of the situation is that there is lots of software out there that I want to use, and will pay to get once, but I will not pay more than once just because I have 2 machines. >While a no-exceptions single CPU license may be too >restrictive, there has to be SOME restriction or else all >the software houses will go out of business. What should it >be? All computers owned by one person? All computers owned >by a single business? Of course there has to be some restrictions, but I am flaming at SINGLE CPU licenses. I think something like all systems owned by the same person or business that are located within the same building would be fine. >Does anybody really think that a copmpany with 50 PC's >running text editors should pay the same for that text >editor as a company with only one PC? If the company only needed one copy of the manual then I feel they should only have to buy one copy. John McNamee jpm@Bnl ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm P.S. Some software I wrote for the TRS-80 is still being sold and I collect royalties on it. I'm sure it is being pirated all to hell, but I accept that as par for the course. My software has no single CPU license attached to it and I know of one business that runs it on 5 machines. I'm happy to only get paid once for that. P.P.S. To the people who flamed at me for using Bullsh** in my message, the message started on usenet where big brother DoD isn't watching. I forgot that my msg would be forwarded to Arpanet.
matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA (04/03/84)
From: Matthew J. Weinstein <matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA>
When you buy a (major) piece of software, you must usually sign a contractual
agreement. If you don't, you don't get the product (unless you steal it).
Contracts written by software companies for consumers are typically
one-sided. Why shouldn't they be? They have very little to lose. When
was the last time you refused to buy a product because of arbitrary
contractual restrictions?
[Of course, there is a group of people, with multiple cpu's, who either
have to buy multiple copies, negotiate a multi-copy license, or assume
some risk of liability when using a single copy on multiple machines].
There are only a few (simple) techniques (that I know of) that would give
the buyer enough leverage to make a company change its tack:
Quantity purchases: these are generally made by a single
organization, and do not help others in a similar situation.
Buying organizations: these could include consumer's groups or
purchasing organizations. These could be quite effective for their
membership, depending on structure.
Perhaps it's time to investigate the second alternative.
- Matt