potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") (06/24/91)
Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old versions of PC software that is no longer is use, i.e some packages were upgraded and the older versions are collecting dust. Examples: WordPerfect 4.2 and 5.0, WordPerfect Executive 1.0, Harvard Graphics 2.1 and Micrografx Graph Plus 2.1 (for Microsoft Windows 2.0) -------------------------------------------------------------------- John A. Potelle | /////| BITNET: POTELLE@MAINE Computer Programmer |///// | Internet: potelle@maine.maine.edu Office of Institutional Studies - University of Maine
endter@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bill Endter RCU/DEC) (06/26/91)
In article <POTELLE.910624122738@maine.maine.EDU>, potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") writes: |> Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old |> versions of PC software that is no longer is use, i.e some packages |> were upgraded and the older versions are collecting dust. Examples: |> WordPerfect 4.2 and 5.0, WordPerfect Executive 1.0, Harvard |> Graphics 2.1 and Micrografx Graph Plus 2.1 (for Microsoft Windows 2.0) |> It depends on how the product is licensed. Some companies allow it, but others don't. The best way is to check with company who makes the software. As I recall, Borland is one of the ones who will let you do this (it seems they want everyone to have their software), and Microsoft is one of the ones who doesn't. I think one of the reasons Borland allows it, is because they hope the person who gets the old software will want to upgrade to the latest version. Bill
toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) (06/26/91)
In article <1991Jun25.203743.27619@riacs.edu> endter@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bill Endter RCU/DEC) writes: >In article <POTELLE.910624122738@maine.maine.EDU>, potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") writes: >|> Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old >|> versions of PC software that is no longer is use [...] > It depends on how the product is licensed. Some companies allow it, but > others don't. The best way is to check with company who makes the software. > As I recall, Borland is one of the ones who will let you do this (it seems > they want everyone to have their software), and Microsoft is one of the > ones who doesn't. I thought that was true about Borland, but one of my coworkers just called them on the phone and they said that old copies must be destroyed, although nothing ever shipped has stated that to be the case. Microsoft has stated that old versions cannot be sold. Lotus requires that old copied be destroyed. WordPerfect allows you to donate old copies (providing they are complete) to schools (high school or below), and the school can then license them as new, and get support(!), for free. > I think one of the reasons Borland allows it, is because they hope the > person who gets the old software will want to upgrade to the latest version. That's what I thought. But we are still investigating. -- Tom Almy toma@sail.labs.tek.com Standard Disclaimers Apply
theall@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu (George A. Theall) (06/26/91)
In article <9792@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: >In article <1991Jun25.203743.27619@riacs.edu> endter@pioneer.arc.nasa.gov (Bill Endter RCU/DEC) writes: >> I think one of the reasons Borland allows it, is because they hope the >> person who gets the old software will want to upgrade to the latest version. > >That's what I thought. But we are still investigating. I wrote a letter to Borland about this in March. Since they have yet to respond to it, I would appreciate hearing what your investigating turns up. Any chance sidney@borland.com might give something resembling Borland's official word on the matter? I wouldn't mind even *giving away* an old copy of Turbo C Pro. George --- theall@rm105serve.sas.upenn.edu Dept. of Economics theall@ssctemp.sas.upenn.edu Univ. of Pennsylvania gtheall@penndrls.upenn.edu Philadelphia, PA 19104
pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang) (06/27/91)
In article <POTELLE.910624122738@maine.maine.EDU> potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") writes: > Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old > versions of PC software that is no longer is use, i.e some packages > were upgraded and the older versions are collecting dust. Conceptually, when you bought the first version, you obtained a license to use that version of their software. I think an upgrade (depending on the particular brand of legalese that a company favors) in legal terms modifies that license to the new version, not provide you with another license which is for the new version. So morally (and possibly legally), you probably shouldn't provide the old copy to someone else because they will not "have" a license for running the software. I like the comment someone made about Wordperfect's policy. My high school received several dozen copies of Wordperfect 5.0 licenses donated when the commercial firm upgraded to 5.1, which was nice. Since the schools provide tech support to the students, there's little extra load on WP tech support, and the computer literacy classes were turning out students who are at least a little bit familiar with Wordperfect. -- Above text where applicable is (c) Copyleft 1991, all rights deserved by: UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang) [INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu]
mike@idca.tds.philips.nl (Mike Corrall) (06/27/91)
I received my copy of MS-DOS 5 Upgrade Kit last night, and having read stuff on this newsgroup about re-selling software, I checked the Licence Agreement in Dutch. It says that it is allowed to re-sell the product, provided that all copies of the software, manuals, etc. are supplied to the new owner. So it seems to be country-dependent. At the bottom of that page, is a note that Dutch law applies. I didn't look hard at other pages for other countries, but I suspect that similar conditions apply for them. BTW, my copy is "non-USA", whatever that implies. My hfl 0.02 worth, Mike. -- Opinion of: Mike Corrall Voxnet: +31 55 43 2579 Faxnet: +31 55 43 2070 UUCP: ..!mcsun!philapd!mike Internet: mike@idca.tds.philips.nl [130.144.155.80] Papernet: PLG9i, Philips Information Systems, PO Box 245, NL-7300 AL Apeldoorn She was a good cook, as cooks go; and as good cooks go, she went.
cbishop@zeus (06/27/91)
In article <9792@sail.LABS.TEK.COM>, toma@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Tom Almy) writes: > > Microsoft has stated that old versions cannot be sold. Lotus requires that < I called Microsoft about transferring a license for Windows 3.0 from myself to someone I'm selling it to. They told me to just send them a letter requesting the license transfer and we'll be all set. Chuck
robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca (Robert Meunier) (06/28/91)
In article <POTELLE.910624122738@maine.maine.EDU> potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") writes: >Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old >versions of PC software that is no longer is use, i.e some packages >were upgraded and the older versions are collecting dust. Examples: >WordPerfect 4.2 and 5.0, WordPerfect Executive 1.0, Harvard >Graphics 2.1 and Micrografx Graph Plus 2.1 (for Microsoft Windows 2.0) > I would say that you cannot sell those program because you don't own them. The license usally state that the company grante you a license to use the software. It does not mean that you own it. When you buy an upgrade, you still have only one license but replace the old one with the new version of the software. -- Robert Meunier Institut de Recherche d'Hydro-Quebec Ingenieur 1800 Montee Ste-Julie, Varennes Internet: robert@ireq.hydro.qc.ca Qc, Canada, J3X 1S1 maintainer: BASIC mailing list request to basic-request@ireq.hydro.qc.ca
pshuang@athena.mit.edu (Ping-Shun Huang) (06/29/91)
In article <1260@apdnm.idca.tds.philips.nl> mike@idca.tds.philips.nl (Mike Corrall) writes: > I received my copy of MS-DOS 5 Upgrade Kit last night, and having read > stuff on this newsgroup about re-selling software, I checked the Licence > Agreement in Dutch. It says that it is allowed to re-sell the product, > provided that all copies of the software, manuals, etc. are supplied to > the new owner. So it seems to be country-dependent. While it's quite possible that license requirements differe for packages which are sold in different countries, usually *INTER*-package differences are greater than intra-package-different-distribution ones. In any case, I'm glad that Microsoft has written a reasonable software license for MS-DOS if the above is quoted correctly and applies to US copies as well. Not having a copy of DOS 5, I wonder if they've also adopted the more reasonable approach of allowing multiple installs of the same package as long as only one person uses it at any time. -- Above text where applicable is (c) Copyleft 1991, all rights deserved by: UNIX:/etc/ping instantiated (Ping Huang) [INTERNET: pshuang@athena.mit.edu]
brs@cci632.cci.com (Brian Scherer) (06/29/91)
In article <POTELLE.910624122738@maine.maine.EDU> potelle@MAINE.MAINE.EDU ("John A. Potelle") writes: >Can anyone comment on the legal problems (if any) of selling old >versions of PC software that is no longer is use, i.e some packages >were upgraded and the older versions are collecting dust. Examples: >WordPerfect 4.2 and 5.0, WordPerfect Executive 1.0, Harvard >Graphics 2.1 and Micrografx Graph Plus 2.1 (for Microsoft Windows 2.0) > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >John A. Potelle | /////| BITNET: POTELLE@MAINE >Computer Programmer |///// | Internet: potelle@maine.maine.edu >Office of Institutional Studies - University of Maine Yes, if you upgraded, and the upgrade did not include a COMPLETE set of everything (including all files) then you can not sell the last revision. If it did, then you can sell or transfer ownership to another party ONLY IF you transfer ALL COPIES of that version plus the manuals etc. You must destroy any copies that you have. Brian