cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (06/01/85)
> Several comments about the proposed software license bill in > California: > > California is not the first state to consider such a bill. > Louisiana past such a bill last year. It is too early to tell if it > has had any effect. A Connecticut working group has also considered > such a bill, but has tentatively rejected it. Their reasons for doing > so was that the burden of establishing a restrictive licensing agree- > ment should be place upon the party it benefits. If a software > distributor wants a license to be enforceable, therefore, the distri- > butor must make sure that the proper formalities are followed. > > Users of software should be very concerned with these bills. They are > being drafted and sponsored by software development companies, not users. > As written, they offer no protection to users. The software developer > can place any restriction desired into a software license and, under the > terms of the proposed bills, the terms become valid. In theory, a total > prohibition against making copies could be included (e.g. no backup allowed). > If you don't like the licensing restrictions, don't buy the software. If enough software buyers express their dislike of a particular vendor's restrictions, vendors with more reasonable licenses will fill the market demand. > To prevent the type of abuse, the user community > must follow the consideration of the legislation closely. More importantly, > we must contact our legislators and insist that the bills contain protective > provisions for the user community. Primary among these must be the right > to make a reasonable number of backup copies and to transfer the software > to another machine. Additionally, no absolute prohibition on transfer > of ownership should be allowed. If the license is to require company > authority to transfer software, the company must be required to give that > authority without undue restriction upon the users and without requiring > the user to pay any substantial fee. > The software "license" is in fact a method of making enforceable a contract that the vendor makes with the buyer of the software. (There is currently some question concerning the enforceability of these contracts, even though all parties to the contracts are voluntary. Anyone who claims that the contract associated with buying a piece of software isn't "voluntary" needs to spend some time with a dictionary.) The contract is visible through the shrink wrap. If you aren't happy with the terms of the contract, don't buy it! It sounds as though you want the state to establish the terms of what is, after all a voluntary exchange. Before you claim that the vendor might "exploit" software buyers with an unreasonable license restriction, remember, no one is going to live or die because of a license restriction; I even doubt anyone is going to be seriously injured financially by not being able to buy a particular software package. It sounds like you want the government to play bully for you, and force software vendors into doing what *you* want. > Ralph Clifford for > > {decvax,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!dmimi > Mimi Clifford > 2535 Sevier St > Durham, NC 27705 > 919-489-4821 919-684-2854 (Wed) Software is intellectual property; if an author doesn't have the right to control the conditions of sale of his intellectual property, it won't be produced.