reichard@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kevin Reichard) (01/30/91)
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >In article <1991Jan24.091048.2269@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> merx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >>Hi, >>... so I am looking for your unused or out of date old version of >>Quick Basic, Turbo Basic, Power Basic (of any Basic that can be compiled) I >>would like to find something in the $10 to $25 range. Give your old Basic >>software a good home. > >What you propose is probably illegal. For not much more than you want to >spend you can buy a brand-spanking new copy of Microsoft QuickBASIC 4.5 and >you'll have the benefit of being a registered owner AND you'll have the >documentation. In addition you'll have a great language compiler. > > > >-- >Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way >Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf>%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA >uucp: uunet!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer! Um, I don't think any court has held it illegal to sell used software. UUCP: {amdahl!bungia, crash}!orbit!pnet51!reichard ARPA: crash!orbit!pnet51!reichard@nosc.mil INET: reichard@pnet51.orb.mn.org
scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) (01/31/91)
In article <3929@orbit.cts.com>, reichard@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kevin Reichard) writes: > fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: > >In article <1991Jan24.091048.2269@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> merx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: > >>... so I am looking for your unused or out of date old version of > >>Quick Basic, Turbo Basic, Power Basic (of any Basic that can be compiled) I > > > >What you propose is probably illegal. > > Um, I don't think any court has held it illegal to sell used software. It depends. In most cases, when you upgrade to a new release of software the upgrade is considered part of the original package and the license agreement prohibits selling part of the package. You have to sell everything or nothing. Various vendors have different policies, however, so you should check your license agreement or contact the company if in doubt. (There are some companies who actually encourage recycling of upgraded packages as a form of advertising!) ---- Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH 45150-2789 513-576-2070 Domain: scjones@thor.UUCP Path: uunet!sdrc!thor!scjones It's like SOMEthing... I just can't think of it. -- Calvin
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (02/01/91)
In article <152@thor.UUCP> scjones@thor.UUCP (Larry Jones) writes: >In article <3929@orbit.cts.com>, reichard@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kevin Reichard) writes: >> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >> >In article <1991Jan24.091048.2269@vax5.cit.cornell.edu> merx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu writes: >> >>... so I am looking for your unused or out of date old version of >> >>Quick Basic, Turbo Basic, Power Basic (of any Basic that can be compiled) I >> > >> >What you propose is probably illegal. >> >> Um, I don't think any court has held it illegal to sell used software. > >It depends. In most cases, when you upgrade to a new release of >software the upgrade is considered part of the original package >and the license agreement prohibits selling part of the package. >You have to sell everything or nothing. Various vendors have >different policies, however, so you should check your license >agreement or contact the company if in doubt. (There are some >companies who actually encourage recycling of upgraded packages >as a form of advertising!) > The part of this in single > marks assumes that what a vendor tells you is legal. In most states (all states) and in most courts, the stuff taht a vendor is trying to enforse with a so-called "license" is not binding on the purchaser. In general it is safe to assume that for a contract to bind you, the purchaser, it must be agreed to you in writing before the sale. So yes, you can indeed sell those old versions of software (as long, of course, as you didn'ty actually sign a license agreement that says otherwise.) The operative question is "has any court held it illegal to sell used software in the absence of a SIGNED BY THE BUYER license agreement". Ok legal eagles, start answering the above question with legal citations. Doug McDonald
mcdonald@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Doug McDonald) (02/01/91)
In article <167@esun49.nms.gdc.portal.com> chadbour@nms.gdc.portal.com (jeffrey chadbourne) writes: > > >No, its not illegal to sell used software, but is illegal to sell an old version >of software, when an upgraded version is still in use. When you upgrade, you >do not get a new license, but rather extend the old. The old version ceases >to exist. > Please quote the applicable case law or statute law. Please remember that all that verbiage that companies write on their software packages means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! Only the law means something. Doug McDonald
tczarnik@cup.portal.com (Tom A Czarnik) (02/05/91)
In general, a "Shrink-wrapped" license is not enforceable, because the
the buyer must know:
1) They are buying a license
2) The terms of the license
And of course the publisher must know who the buyer is. A written contract
is a must to stanb up to a court challange. If you ever look on the
envelope that Microsoft's disk come in, you'll notice the terms of their
so-called license. You have what is called "restrictive rights", however
since their is no license agreement, you do own the software and have all
the rights outlined in the copyright code.
Also note, way on the bottom: "This agreement is goverend by the laws
of the State of Washington." A breach of license contract is a state issue,
not federal.
I believe a few states hold the "Shrink-wrap" license legal only if
clearly printed on the OUTSIDE of the package, and the customer must be
able to bring the software back to the original place of purchase (or
publisher must issue) for a refund.
Tom.
Internet: tczarnik@cup.portal.com
UUCP : uunet!portal!cup.portal.com!tczarniktczarnik@cup.portal.com (Tom A Czarnik) (02/05/91)
In California, several cases were decided regarding "Shrink-wrap" licenses, all judges made the point that the buyer was unaware of a license existing. Also to make a point about getting an upgrade version, and that product would still be under the original license? Wrong! There was no original license. Customers always get foold by what corporations tell them about their rights. Never trust them, their looking out for their own interests. Remember, a license is only in force and enforce- able, when both parties agree to the license, the terms have been presented before hand, and a binding contract have been enterd into. Think about this: what if your uncle buys some software and he can only speak Spanish. Obviously he can't read a license agreement. Or he give the product as a gift to someone, well they are not the original purchaser. Those two events happened, and were eventualy thrown out of court.
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) (02/06/91)
In article <3929@orbit.cts.com> reichard@pnet51.orb.mn.org (Kevin Reichard) writes: > >Um, I don't think any court has held it illegal to sell used software. > That may well be because no company has seen fit to prosecute anyone. Since this is probably a very difficult crime to track down, it's often not worth the effort. However, if any volunteers would like to step up, I'm sure someone could establish a precedent. The reality is, at least where Microsoft software is concerned, is that you are specifically prohibited from selling previous releases of updated software. Our licensing agreement says: 3. OTHER RESTRICTIONS. You may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE, but you may transfer the SOFTWARE and accompanying written materials on a permanent basis provided you retain no copies and the recipient agrees to the terms of this agreement. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the SOFTWARE. If SOFTWARE is an update, any transfer must include the update and all prior versions. Now I think that's pretty straightforward. If you sell your old software, you're violating the licensing agreement and therefore are subject to legal action. Just because you don't know about the rulings of judges across the country doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past or wont happen in the future. It is, after all, explicitly prohibited by a legally binding agreement between two parties. Enough said. -- Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA uucp: uunet!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer!
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/12/91)
In article <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >>The reality is, at least where Microsoft software is concerned, is that you >>are specifically prohibited from selling previous releases of updated software. >>Our licensing agreement says: > >Which of course is rubbish. No license contract exists. That piece of >paper that Microsoft calls a "License agreement" is simply a waste of >ink and paper. I've had the occasion >to discuss this very issue with my copyright lawyer. Every time I ask something >along these lines, he replies with the same statement. [detailed discussion on rights, agreements, and lawyers cut] This reminds me of the foolishness printed on the dBase II (?) agreement. Allegedly, you did not "own" the software, but merely purchased a 99 year lease on it, if you took a look at the fine print. Kinda wondered what those people were smokin' in the early '90s. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (02/12/91)
In <70478@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >Our licensing agreement says: >3. OTHER RESTRICTIONS.... At a licensing agreement isn't a licensing agreement until you get somebody to agree to abide by it. (The "agreement" does not exist until somebody "agrees".) Traditionally this agreement happens only when somebody signs the license agreement. An unsigned license agreement isn't a license agreement. (Verbal agreements, though legally valid, are nearly impossible to prove or enforce.) I'm sure a lot of software companies wish it weren't so. But until they can get a court ruling confirming that they can make a license agreement binding on a party that hasn't signed it, these license agreements will remain wishful thinking. Software users who are party to a *signed* a license agreement are legally bound by its conditions. The rest of us need only obey copyright law. Publicly available software that is covered neither by a signed license agreement nor by copyright law is probably public domain. The software vendors fully realize this and this is why *in addition* to their license agreements they include stern copyright claims. Such copyright claims would be completely unnecessary if unsigned license agreements had any legal merit. -- Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com> UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesi
jerry@gumby.Altos.COM (Jerry Gardner) (02/12/91)
In article <70478@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: }3. OTHER RESTRICTIONS. You may not rent or lease the SOFTWARE, but you may }transfer the SOFTWARE and accompanying written materials on a permanent basis }provided you retain no copies and the recipient agrees to the terms of this }agreement. You may not reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the }SOFTWARE. If SOFTWARE is an update, any transfer must include the update }and all prior versions. } }Now I think that's pretty straightforward. If you sell your old software, }you're violating the licensing agreement and therefore are subject to }legal action. Just because you don't know about the rulings of judges }across the country doesn't mean that it hasn't happened in the past or }wont happen in the future. It is, after all, explicitly prohibited by }a legally binding agreement between two parties. Enough said. Legally binding agreement? Says who? Microsoft? I doubt a shrink-wrap "license agreement" is valid anywhere. Most people never read the things before they buy the package so how can it be binding? I guess "making it all make sense" doesn't necessarily imply common sense. -- Jerry Gardner, NJ6A Altos Computer Systems UUCP: {sun|pyramid|sco|amdahl|uunet}!altos!jerry 2641 Orchard Parkway Internet: jerry@altos.com San Jose, CA 95134 Guns don't kill people, bullets do. (408) 432-6200
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) (02/13/91)
In article 38899@cup.portal.com tczarnik@cup.portal.com (Tom A Czarnik) writes: > > In California, several cases were decided regarding "Shrink-wrap" >licenses, all judges made the point that the buyer was unaware of a >license existing. > Also to make a point about getting an upgrade version, and that >product would still be under the original license? Wrong! There was >no original license. This thread was not talking about "Shrink-wrap" software licenses. We're talking about opening a box that contains a clearly marked envelope of diskettes. On the outside of the envelope are the words, "IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING. By opening this sealed disk package, you indicate your acceptance of the following Microsoft License Agreement." Now we can speculate all day about a variety of scenarios where the original purchaser is a non-English-speaking person, but that serves to confuse rather than clarify the issue. The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have agreed, like it or not. -- Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA uucp: uunet!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer!
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) (02/13/91)
In <70629@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes:
We're talking about opening a box that contains a clearly marked
envelope of diskettes. On the outside of the envelope are the
words, "IMPORTANT - READ CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING. By opening this
sealed disk package, you indicate your acceptance of the following
Microsoft License Agreement."
Irrelevant. If I legally bought that envelope, it is already my
property. I can legally do anything with my property (including
opening the sealed disk package without agreeing to anything) that
doesn't contradict some applicable law.
IMPORTANT -- READ THIS CAREFULLY: By reading this warning, you (yes, I
mean you) are agreeing to send me $100,000 in US dollars within 7 days
of when you read this. Furthermore, by posting articles to Usenet, you
are agreeing to mail me $1000 for each article that you post, for no
reason other than that you believe everything you read.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com>
UUCP: oliveb!cirrusl!dhesibangell%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Bob Angell) (02/13/91)
In article <70629@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >In article 38899@cup.portal.com tczarnik@cup.portal.com (Tom A Czarnik) writes: >> >> In California, several cases were decided regarding "Shrink-wrap" >>licenses, all judges made the point that the buyer was unaware of a >>license existing. >> Also to make a point about getting an upgrade version, and that >>product would still be under the original license? Wrong! There was >>no original license. > >This thread was not talking about "Shrink-wrap" software licenses. We're >talking about opening a box that contains a clearly marked envelope of >diskettes. On the outside of the envelope are the words, "IMPORTANT - READ >CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING. By opening this sealed disk package, you indicate >your acceptance of the following Microsoft License Agreement." > >Now we can speculate all day about a variety of scenarios where the original >purchaser is a non-English-speaking person, but that serves to confuse >rather than clarify the issue. > >The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and >a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by >definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't >matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have >agreed, like it or not. > > >-- >Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way >Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA >uucp: uunet!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer! The whole idea of "blanket-protection" assumed by Microsoft and other software vendors is repulsive and as stated previously is pure BUNK! They may glory in their assumptions, but to enforce every perceived 'violation' (term used extremely loosely in this context!) is absurd! Others may have a need but not the $$$ for such software, hence the 2nd-hand market. In some cases, it actually helps the vendors to receive new users through these methods. But if companies, like Microsoft, want to beat-up on small-time users through threats and intimidation, in the end, it only hurts the company! So whats all the bitching and moaning about anyway? It looks like a win-win situation! Lets not see Microsoft and others be another LOTUS with all of its protectionism!!! Enough said. -Bob- bangell@peruvian.utah.edu; angellrl@cc.utah.edu; !peruvian.utah.edu!bangell "Opinions above are my own and do not necessarily reflect those of the UofU"
jm9t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Josh Brian Mastronarde) (02/13/91)
Excerpts From Captions of netnews.comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc: 12-Feb-91 Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOF.. Fred FREELAND@microsoft. (1980) >The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and >a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by >definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't >matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have >agreed, like it or not. Um, for this to be valid, wouldn't I have to agree to the license *before* I purchased the software? What if I don't agree to the terms? "Agreement" implies that I have a choice of either agreeing to the terms, or walking away from the deal. Last I checked, most software houses charged a 15% restocking fee for software. But Microsoft will gladly refund the full purchase price if I don't like the license, right? I didn't think so. Take for example any other contract situation. When I buy a house, until I actually *sign* any papers, I can abort the deal with no expense, right? (Not including lawyer, bank, or any other indirect fees. I mean I haven't paid the seller anything). Once I buy the house, both parties are bound by the contract signed before the sale. Your license agreement would be like the seller putting a big note on the front door: "You have not really purchased this house. You have purchased a license to use the attic on alternate Tuesdays. Do not open this door unless you agree to these terms. If not, you can get 85% of your money back" I think the key here is that I purchase the software *before* the license is pointed out to me. I consider the act of purchasing something to be an agreement in and of itself. I fork over money to someone and in return I expect free and full use and ownership of something (provided that the sale is legal in the first place). Of course this use is restricted by *government* laws (such as restrictions on concealed weapons, radar detectors, copyright laws, etc). While it might be possible to enact an agreement without a signature, it would have to take place BEFORE the purchase took place. That is, without a contract prior to sale (whether verbal or oral), the contract of sale is the binding agreement of the transaction, not whatever gibberish Microsoft prints inside the package to scare people into believing them. -Josh Mastronarde -jm9t+@andrew.cmu.edu "This is completely original, hand-typed. Not a .sig" I don't think there's anyone stupid enough to think CMU would want me to speak for them, is there?
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) (02/13/91)
In article <70629@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >We're talking about opening a box that contains a clearly marked envelope of >diskettes. On the outside of the envelope are the words, "IMPORTANT - READ >CAREFULLY BEFORE OPENING. By opening this sealed disk package, you indicate >your acceptance of the following Microsoft License Agreement." > >[stuff deleted] > >The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and >a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by >definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't >matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have >agreed, like it or not. > You seem to hold the position that anything placed upon the envelope by Microsoft, and declared to be binding on any individual who opens the envelope, is in fact binding, simply because Microsoft wishes it so. You seem to feel that a court of law will treat the act of opening a sealed envelope as legally equivalent to signing ones name on a contract. I submit to you that such a view is an extreme one lacking any legal support. Suppose Microsoft, among all the other tiny print on the disk envelope, added the following sentence to its license: Furthermore, if this software was obtained for use by a place of business, then the act of opening the envelope by any employee of that place of business is sufficient to bind that business, and all current and future employees to the terms of this license. Do you honestly believe that ANY court of law would uphold such terms? Even if I signed a license containing such terms and mailed it to Microsoft, they would not be able to hold my employer and fellow employees to the terms of the license. Just because someone can put together a plausable sounding terms on an envelope, call it a license, and declare that any individual who opens the envelope agrees to the terms written thereon does not make it so! It is truly hard for me to understand that anyone could actually believe that these sealed envelope "licenses" are valid. But for arguments sake, let's suppose that they are valid somewhere. I suggest that Microsoft would find it impossible to enforce the license in any court of law, because they would find it impossible to produce evidence that the user of the software is the individual who opened the envelope. Consider the following scenario. I go to a retail store and purchase a copy of Microsoft C. But I remind the salesman that the last time I purchased software from this store, I had problems with several disks being bad. I do not want to make another 30 mile return trip. He offers to check out all the disks for me while I go across the street and grab some lunch. When I come back, he tells me that the disks all checked out. So I take the package home. When I open the box, I discover that the disks were placed into a new blank envelope. The original envelope, with the Microsoft license printed on it, is no where to be found. Or, try this on for size. I bring home Microsoft C and ask my 6 year old daughter to open the envelope containing the disks. In neither case did I break the seal on the envelope. By law, my daughter is not old enough to enter into a binding contract (or license). So, even though she broke the seal, she is not bound by the terms of the license. Of course, since I did not open the envelope, I am not bound by the license, either. If Microsoft ever takes anyone to court over one of these "licenses", it will first have to prove that the accused individual actually opened the envelope. Assuming the accused chooses NOT to take the stand as a witness, Microsoft cannot even get to first base. The case gets thrown out of court because Microsoft cannot prove that the accused opened the envelope. However, if, by some luck, it is able to prove that the accused opened the envelope, it still must succeed in proving that the act of opening a sealed envelope is the legal equivalent of signing ones name to a contract and agreeing to the terms contained therein. I rate the chance of success as slim to none. Consider that most theater and sports tickets, nowadays, have small print on the back stating that the purchaser of the ticket agrees that the theater or sports arena is relieved of all liability if anything were to happen to the purchaser while at the theater or stadium. In most jurisdictions, such disclaimers on the back of adminision tickets hold no legal standing. -- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Kevin Gallagher kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org OR ...!uunet!digi!kgallagh DSC Communications Corporation Addr: MS 152, 1000 Coit Rd, Plano, TX 75075 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts) (02/14/91)
In article <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: >fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: [ debate over legality of individuals selling prior versions of software that they had upgraded deleted ] Without really venturing into this fray, I would like to suggest that public advocacy might be a faster way to resolve this issue. Say, for example, there was a company in Redmond that said selling prior versions of its software was illegal, while a company in, say, Scott's Valley, said such re-selling was fine with them. All other things being equal, this might be one more reason _not_ to purchase software from the company in Redmond. You can say what you will about our capitalist system, but you cannot deny that companies eventually (sometimes, however, _very_ slowly) respond to the desires of consumers. Look how MS-DOS software copy protection is essentially a thing of the past in the U.S. and Canada due mostly to public pressure and outcry. I would say if there is something you do not like about a vendor's policies, and the vendor will not respond, then tell the world. USENET, FidoNet, User Groups, and the computer trades are all readily accesable forums for such debate. If enough people agree, things will change. (Disclaimer: Yes, I work for a large, sometimes controversial software company. The above opinions are mine and mine alone.) Tom Rombouts 'Torrance Tater tomr@ashtate.A-T.com
erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune) (02/14/91)
In article <MbiDNuO00Uh_A1D7gN@andrew.cmu.edu>, jm9t+@andrew.cmu.edu (Josh Brian Mastronarde) writes: >Um, for this to be valid, wouldn't I have to agree to the license >*before* I purchased the software? What if I don't agree to the terms? >"Agreement" implies that I have a choice of either agreeing to the >terms, or walking away from the deal. Last I checked, most software >houses charged a 15% restocking fee for software. But Microsoft will >gladly refund the full purchase price if I don't like the license, >right? I didn't think so. Take for example any other contract >situation. When I buy a house, until I actually *sign* any papers, I >can abort the deal with no expense, right? (Not including lawyer, bank, Actually, most of the software that I have which bothers with this type of licensing says "if you do not accept these terms, return the unopened package for a full refund." >I think the key here is that I purchase the software *before* the >license is pointed out to me. I consider the act of purchasing >something to be an agreement in and of itself. I fork over money to >someone and in return I expect free and full use and ownership of >something (provided that the sale is legal in the first place). Of >course this use is restricted by *government* laws (such as restrictions >on concealed weapons, radar detectors, copyright laws, etc). When purchasing software, I pretty much assume that I can use it but can't give free copies away to my friends. I always check the license to make sure that there aren't any other, non-standard and more odious clauses (like anything you develop using our compiler generator is our property, for example). >While it might be possible to enact an agreement without a signature, it >would have to take place BEFORE the purchase took place. That is, >without a contract prior to sale (whether verbal or oral), the contract >of sale is the binding agreement of the transaction, not whatever >gibberish Microsoft prints inside the package to scare people into >believing them. The sale is an agreement, but the terms are not explicit. The license in the package makes the terms explicit. I don't think you would have a problem contesting a shrink-wrap contract that said "open this package and you owe us your house," for example because it's pretty clearly unreasonable. As the terms get more reasonable (e.g. "if you upgrade, destroy the old copy") I think it gets harder and harder to contest the contract. When you get to "don't give free copies to your friends," I think the contract is uncontestible. Be careful. Piracy is a problem. If enough people insist that anything that isn't signed isn't binding, then the amount of red tape we need to deal with to buy (major) software packages is likely to increase a lot in the next few years. -- Erik
smsmith@hpuxa.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Stephen M. Smith) (02/15/91)
kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes: >In article <70629@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >if I signed a license containing such terms and mailed it to Microsoft, they >would not be able to hold my employer and fellow employees to the terms of the >license. > >Just because someone can put together a plausable sounding terms on an >envelope, call it a license, and declare that any individual who opens the >envelope agrees to the terms written thereon does not make it so! >....Microsoft cannot prove that the accused opened the envelope. Step one: Give software package to your daughter. Step two: Tell her something is inside. Step three: Leave the room. Step four: Come back in and "rescue" opened package. SS
dodson@convex.COM (Dave Dodson) (02/15/91)
In article <70649@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >It's not the act of reading that makes it enforceable, it's the opening of >the envelope. The agreement says: > >"If you do not agree to the terms of this agreement, promptly return the >unopened disk package and the accompanying items (including written material >and binders or other containers) to the place you obtained them for a full >refund." > >If both parties do not agree with the terms, then there is no agreement and >the transaction, i.e., the purchase, must be undone. I think we have a circular argument here. If I hold the agreement to be invalid, why would/should I hold this particular clause to be valid? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Dave Dodson dodson@convex.COM Convex Computer Corporation Richardson, Texas (214) 497-4234
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/15/91)
In article <1991Feb12.200901.9129@hellgate.utah.edu> bangell%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Bob Angell) writes: |The whole idea of "blanket-protection" assumed by Microsoft and other software |vendors is repulsive and as stated previously is pure BUNK! They may glory in |their assumptions, but to enforce every perceived 'violation' (term used |extremely loosely in this context!) is absurd! | |Others may have a need but not the $$$ for such software, hence the 2nd-hand |market. In some cases, it actually helps the vendors to receive new users |through these methods. But if companies, like Microsoft, want to beat-up on |small-time users through threats and intimidation, in the end, it only hurts |the company! So whats all the bitching and moaning about anyway? It looks |like a win-win situation! Lets not see Microsoft and others be another LOTUS |with all of its protectionism!!! Independently of the question of the validity of shrink-wrap licenses, which is not unique to Microsoft, I feel that Microsoft's license terms are extremely reasonable. Can anyone other than Richard Stallman honestly say they believe they have or should have a right to give away free copies of a Microsoft product? Consider that the newer products like Word for Windows have the concept of a printed "license" card which you receive when you purchase the software package. The person who is the physical holder of the card has the right to use the software. You may install the software on more than one machine as long as you observe the limitation of only one user per license card. Isn't this a whole lot better than the copy protection schemes that other companies have used? What's the beef? What has Microsoft done (outside of the SWL which is almost an industry standard practice) that you can honestly say is unfair? --
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) (02/15/91)
dhesi%cirrusl@oliveb.ATC.olivetti.com (Rahul Dhesi) writes: >IMPORTANT -- READ THIS CAREFULLY: By reading this warning, you (yes, I >mean you) are agreeing to send me $100,000 in US dollars within 7 days >of when you read this. Furthermore, by posting articles to Usenet, you >are agreeing to mail me $1000 for each article that you post, for no >reason other than that you believe everything you read. Uh, Rahul, you didn't include a Snail-Mail address or appropiate Swiss numbered account where we can wire our payments to.... MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / They're not "bombs". -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / They're "gifts". -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / "Gifts From Above". -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
brando@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu (Brandon Brown) (02/15/91)
Well, I have read all of the threads on this issue, and I can only add one thing, which doesn't necessarily have to do with just software. The law is the law. (Let me finish!) It doesn't matter how person X, Y, or Z interpret the law, all the matters are the two lawyer's opinions, the judge's opinions, and, in some cases, a jury's opinions. Of all the trials I have been to, the point is that there has to be intent to break the law. For instance, shoplifting. If you are shopping in a store, going through the sock rack, and by some freak of nature, the sock statically clings to the back of your sweater, you walk out of the store, you could, by the shoplifting laws (strictly enforced) go to jail for stealing. The point is that you had no intent of leaving the store without purchasing the item. Had you known the item was there, you would have either purchased it, or put it back on display. THAT in itself is the intent part of the law. It doesn't matter what anyone on this thread thinks about "the law", it only matters if your a** gets the burden of proof fallen upon itself. I personally think if you pay tons of money for a software product, and then decide you want the new version, or don't want the product anymore, or whatever the case, you can sell it to someone else, similarly to the way the original manufacturer sold it to you. It seems to me that it is in their best interest to get as many users in the "front door" with the initial purchase, and then offer those past customers, as well as the new "license" holders, the opportunity to get their latest and greatest for $100, or whatever. Everybody wins. The $100 covers engineering and printing costs for the company, especially when the average product probably has an upgrade every year. In effect, then, Microsoft has sold two copies instead of one. Over the course of two-three years, at a $100 a pop, you have more direct money coming in from the software sales directly to your company, than you would have if everyone was still purchasing from a software dealer. That seems to me to be a better marketing scheme, than taking all the little guys to court because they didn't buy their software through the dealer or manufacturer networks. Will it only lead to all of our software having ownership titles, and all that bullshit? That only lends to the government stepping in and getting their cut..... +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Brandon Brown | Internet: brando@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu | | Coordinated Science Laboratory | UUCP: uiucuxc!addamax!brando!brown | | University of Illinois | CompuServe: 73040,447 | | Urbana, IL 61801 | GEnie: macbrando | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb15.021607.164@amd.com>, phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >Consider that the newer products like Word for Windows have the concept >of a printed "license" card which you receive when you purchase the >software package. The person who is the physical holder of the card has >the right to use the software. You may install the software on more >than one machine as long as you observe the limitation of only one user >per license card. I bought Windows 3.0 and noticed this as well. I *like* this idea, but I'm worried about losing the card. I think they should have 3-hole punched it, or (alternately) made a credit card form-factor card (which would, of course, be more transportable, but more likely to lose). Hopefully other companies will follow suit with this policy. Wellll, maybe not. Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park * Ray Kaplan for DECUS president * SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU
berger@iboga (Mike Berger) (02/16/91)
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and >a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by >definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't >matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have >agreed, like it or not. *---- You are mistaken. What if the agreement stipulated that I had to give you my firstborn male child? Or that it gave you the right to any software produced on my computer? You can't claim that a shrink-wrap license is binding because opening the package implies consent. That would make any ludicrous conditions applicable by default! Wouldn't you also, then, agree that any conditions I write on the check used to purchase the software are equally binding? By accepting the check, you have consented to MY terms. -- Mike Berger Department of Statistics, University of Illinois AT&TNET 217-244-6067 Internet berger@atropa.stat.uiuc.edu
sichermn@beach.csulb.edu (Jeff Sicherman) (02/16/91)
In article <1991Feb15.200256.21977@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> berger@iboga (Mike Berger) writes: >fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >>The whole point is, that if you are a normal person, with normal faculties and >>a normal understanding of the language, opening the disk envelope is, by >>definition, agreement with the terms of the licensing agreement. It doesn't >>matter if you think it's bogus or not. If you opened the envelope you have >>agreed, like it or not. >*---- >You are mistaken. What if the agreement stipulated that I had to give >you my firstborn male child? Or that it gave you the right to any >software produced on my computer? You can't claim that a shrink-wrap >license is binding because opening the package implies consent. That >would make any ludicrous conditions applicable by default! Wouldn't you >also, then, agree that any conditions I write on the check used to >purchase the software are equally binding? By accepting the check, you have >consented to MY terms. >-- THIS is ludicrous nonsense. ALL contracts, to be enforceable under law must meet a number of legal conditions/tests, including those of reasonable- ness, equity, ability of the parties to contract, validity of the transaction under law (cant enforce a contract to sell illegal drugs, for instance), etc. The shrink-wrap license validity will be decided on these terms, not upon its mere existance. *You* cannot use as a defense that some such licenses might be unenforceable on these terms as a reason to claim threrefore that *all* such contracts are unenforceable. Moreover, the example of the check is irrelevant. The seller (if not the license grantor) is merely acting as a retail agent for the grantor and your check constitutes a contractual relationship with him related to the purchase as governed by statutes and policies of the seller. He is not automatically the enforcer or guarantor of the license's terms. *That* is a contract between you and the license grantor. Jeff Sicherman
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/19/91)
In article <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: > >>Consider that the newer products like Word for Windows have the concept >>of a printed "license" card which you receive when you purchase the >>software package. The person who is the physical holder of the card has >>the right to use the software. > >This "concept", while unique because it attempts to address the question >of installation on multiple machines yet only having a single user at a time, >has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. I much prefer the Borland licensing agreement, which has got to be one of the most reasonable in this world of worthless licensing agreements. I own Sprint, and I can have it installed at work and at home legally, because the Borland license says that I can put it on as many machines as I want, as long as I never run more than one copy at the same time. So in your case, as long as you had as many copies of the program as could be run at once, you have no more hassles. Just another in a long string of reasons why I prefer Borland over MS...
fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) (02/19/91)
In article <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes: > >Well! I guess we've heard the official company line. Which has nothing >to do with the legalities involved. You certainly did not hear the official company line. You'd better reread my signature before you go off half-cocked. I'm just a regular worker bee. I make no policy nor do I speak for the company. What I posted was what I read off our standard licensing agreement. As I said before, I'm not a lawyer, nor are any of the people who have expressed their views in this forum. We're all just expressing our "opinions." It's time to let someone who knows what they are talking about resolve the issue. If you and the others who have said that our licensing agreement has no validity wish to violate, I'm not going to prosecute you. I'm not going to lose any sleep about it one way or the other. It's clear you won't lose sleep either. The bottom line is that someone has to bear the costs of illegal software use (aka software piracy). I'm sure that we can all rationalize big companies like Microsoft absorbing those costs, but little guys who put out quality products can't absorb them. They often just quit producing software because they just can't recoup their investment in research and development. If they don't quit, they do jack up the price to offset the lost profits. I think software costs quite enough thank you. So I generally comply with the wishes of the people or companies who develop the software I use. If you choose not to, we will all ultimately lose. -- Frederick F. Freeland Jr. "Of all the things I've lost, Microsoft Corporation I miss my mind the most!" One Microsoft Way Redmond, WA 98052 (206) 882-8080 internet: fredf@microsoft.beaver.washington.EDU arpanet: fredf%microsoft@uw-beaver.ARPA uucp: uunet!microsoft!fredf Opinions expressed over this signature are my OWN and not those of my employer!
mwizard@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Craig Nelson) (02/19/91)
Someone told me along time ago in a galaxy far far away an old fable of CS programmers. "Not a line of code can you write today that wasn't written by someone else yesterday." In that sense of the word were all a bunch of plageristic pirates and the system can goto hell Craig Nelson (mwizard@eecs.ee.pdx.edu) Programmers Philosophy: All programs contain at least one bug and one unnecessary line. Recusive application yields the conclusion that all programs can be simplified down to one line that doesn't work.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/21/91)
In article <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) writes: |This "concept", while unique because it attempts to address the question |of installation on multiple machines yet only having a single user at a time, |has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. And you have a better idea? I won't ask you to give MS credit for at least trying to address an issue few other companies show concern for, since you seem to hate them so much. |When we received our Windows SKD, we got one of these cards. The "terms" |state that you can only use the software package when you are in physical |possession of this "card". So, now we have to treat employees like children |"Hi Mike, can I have the Windows SKD pass?" - just like you ask for the |bathroom pass in elementary school. If you have two users and one license, you have to coordinate usage somehow. |Furthermore, assume I have the pass on me. I go to lunch. Now, Joe wants |to do a quickie compile to fix a small bug. Technically, according to the |license agreement, he can't use the package, because he doesn't have |"physical possession" of the pass. The license agreement, which you apparently haven't bothered to read, but are happy to flame about, allows for this. The full license defines two types of use, DEDICATED and TRANSITORY. In DEDICATED use, you basically load the SW on one and only one machine and anyone is allowed to use it. In addition, if there is one user who uses the machine more than 80% of the time, he/she is also allowed to use the SW on a portable or home machine. If Joe wants to use your machine while you are out to lunch, this is fine. In TRANSITORY use, every user is required to have a license card in their physical possession. I don't think it's asking too much for you to leave your license card on your desk when you go out to lunch in case someone else wants it. |This type of contract is completely unenforceable. How will Microsoft |ensure that companies are upholding their end of the contract? Send in |little "pass-police" to check people's PCs and make sure if they are |running a package that they have the pass for it. I guess they are relying on the honor system, for which they seem to draw your contempt. What's your alternative, Mr. Smart Guy? |For that matter, why didn't Microsoft just use one of those parallel |port protection devices? It accomplishes the same thing - and ENFORCES |the license agreement to one machine - whichever one has the port plug |hooked up at the time. Why didn't they do this? Because people would |laugh at them and say "The hell with you, I'm not going to buy this |copy protected software package." And what is your point? Some companies do use such schemes and I think they are horrible. MS doesn't, and you think they stink. I wonder if they could do anything that would meet with your approval? -- It is time for California farmers to share in the water shortages that the cities have endured for 5 years.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/21/91)
In article <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: |I much prefer the Borland licensing agreement, which has got to be one of the |most reasonable in this world of worthless licensing agreements. I own Sprint, |and I can have it installed at work and at home legally, because the Borland |license says that I can put it on as many machines as I want, as long as I |never run more than one copy at the same time. So in your case, as long |as you had as many copies of the program as could be run at once, you have no |more hassles. There is no difference of consequence between Borland's license and Microsoft's. |Just another in a long string of reasons why I prefer Borland over MS... I wonder if the rest of your reasons are as baseless as this one. -- It is time for California farmers to share in the water shortages that the cities have endured for 5 years.
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb21.012456.22548@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1991Feb17.132821.12965@anomaly.SBS.COM> mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) writes: >|This "concept", while unique because it attempts to address the question >|of installation on multiple machines yet only having a single user at a time, >|has got to be the stupidest thing I've ever seen. > >And you have a better idea? I won't ask you to give MS credit for at >least trying to address an issue few other companies show concern for, >since you seem to hate them so much. > Well, Borland seems to have a better Idea, as well as the makers of Interactive Easyflow and other packages I own. I really like the IE license... to para- phrase: "We think software licenses where we deny all responsibility for any- thing that happens anywhere while you are using our software are stupid. We also realize that if you're not honest, a laughable software license isn't going to do anything but keep some lawyers employed. So we ask that you only use one copy at a time and that you don't give this program to your friends, but encourage them to buy it at the cheap price of $xx."
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/22/91)
In article <1991Feb21.012733.22624@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >In article <1991Feb18.211413.9429@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >|I much prefer the Borland licensing agreement, which has got to be one of the >|most reasonable in this world of worthless licensing agreements. I own Sprint, >|and I can have it installed at work and at home legally, because the Borland >|license says that I can put it on as many machines as I want, as long as I >|never run more than one copy at the same time. So in your case, as long >|as you had as many copies of the program as could be run at once, you have no >|more hassles. > >There is no difference of consequence between Borland's license and >Microsoft's. > The difference being that I don't have to carry around that stupid little card and have it in my posession when I use the software just to satisfy MS! This means a _great_ deal.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/23/91)
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >also realize that if you're not honest, a laughable software license isn't >going to do anything but keep some lawyers employed. So we ask that you only >use one copy at a time and that you don't give this program to your friends, >but encourage them to buy it at the cheap price of $xx." And how do you think this differs from what MS wants you to do? -- Save water! Use disposable diapers.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/23/91)
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >The difference being that I don't have to carry around that stupid little card >and have it in my posession when I use the software just to satisfy MS! This >means a _great_ deal. Good grief! Do you really think MS is going to come to your house and demand you produce the card? It is a metaphor, just like Borland's book analogy. By the way, I can't believe the way some people try to twist what should be simple. One person told me in mail that Borland's book analogy means that since you can take a book apart, photocopy it and distribute the copies, you can also make copies of Borland software and distribute them. :-( -- Save water! Use disposable diapers.
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/23/91)
In article <1991Feb22.171221.17597@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >>also realize that if you're not honest, a laughable software license isn't >>going to do anything but keep some lawyers employed. So we ask that you only >>use one copy at a time and that you don't give this program to your friends, >>but encourage them to buy it at the cheap price of $xx." > >And how do you think this differs from what MS wants you to do? It's not very different in application, except that you don't have to have the stupid little card to use it. The big difference is in the way they present it. Whereas MicroSoft (and most other companies, this is not a MS specific complaint) hits you over the head with a page full of legalese over what you can and cannot do, under threat of sever penalty and no doubt deportation, the Interactive Easyflow license asks you nicely to respect the copyright on the program in simple English, and makes no hollow threats about what will happen if you don't.
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) (02/23/91)
In article <1991Feb22.171604.17811@amd.com> phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >>The difference being that I don't have to carry around that stupid little card >>and have it in my posession when I use the software just to satisfy MS! This >>means a _great_ deal. > >Good grief! Do you really think MS is going to come to your house and >demand you produce the card? It is a metaphor, just like Borland's book >analogy. > No, I don't think the MS police are going to come looking for me if I don't have the card. However, if I want to use the software without being in violation of the license, I must have that card. It's a question of whether or not I want to honor the license. If I don't observe that part, why should I follow the rest of it? The difference is that Borland, in this case, never requires me to have any card, etc to use their software, enabling me to use it in multiple locations without being in violation of the license and having to carry around that stupid card. In practice, I'm sure it ends up being the same in most cases, users of the MS product just say, "to hell with it" and use it wherever they want, but Borland does not make you make the ridiculous choice of using their stupid card or violating their stupid license.
jdudeck@polyslo.CalPoly.EDU (John R. Dudeck) (02/24/91)
The thing I still don't understand is whether a shrink-wrap license is really a license. When I open the package, I haven't signed my name to a piece of paper. Is a shrink-wrap license equivalent to a verbal agreement? I remember a few years ago reading that shrink-wrap licenses don't hold up in court. So when the publishers print this stuff on the packages, I just figure they are trying to use intimidation techniques, but they can't enforce it. For that matter, when you get a piece of shareware, or freeware, and there is a notice granting you certain rights, and denying you other rights to the software, do these statements have any force? I thought that copyright law spells out the rights involved? -- John Dudeck "Communication systems are jdudeck@Polyslo.CalPoly.Edu inherently complex". ESL: 62013975 Tel: 805-545-9549 -- Ron Oliver
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) (02/25/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >And you have a better idea? I won't ask you to give MS credit for at >least trying to address an issue few other companies show concern for, >since you seem to hate them so much. Yeah, I've got a better idea. Its called spelling out the terms of usage in the "license agreement" and leaving it at that. All this little "pass" does is reduce programmers to children. I, for one, find it insulting. >If you have two users and one license, you have to coordinate usage somehow. If I have twenty users, I have to coordinate usage somehow. With or without the little piece of paper which says "pass", I cannot (nor can Microsoft) insure that the software will only be used by one person at a time. Even otherwise "honest" companies can screw up. >The license agreement, which you apparently haven't bothered to read, >but are happy to flame about, allows for this. The full license defines >two types of use, DEDICATED and TRANSITORY. >In DEDICATED use, you basically load the SW on one and only one machine and >anyone is allowed to use it. In addition, if there is one user who uses the >machine more than 80% of the time, he/she is also allowed to use the SW >on a portable or home machine. So I must now purchase a single 1.2 gig hard drive system so each programmer can take "turns" compiling their program? What next, a ticket machine and a "Now Serving #" sign out front? >If Joe wants to use your machine while you are out to lunch, this is fine. Sorry, Joe can't copy his 15 megs of source code onto a floppy, stick it in my PC, compile it, and then offload the object deck to his floppy for transport back to his machine. >In TRANSITORY use, every user is required to have a license card in their >physical possession. Which is the incredible puerile, assinine thing that I object to. >I don't think it's asking too much for you to leave your license card >on your desk when you go out to lunch in case someone else wants it. But, people often forget to do things. What happens if I take the card home so I can use the package on my portable, but then get very sick the next day and can't come into work? Does that mean the rest of the staff can't use the package because I, attempting to comply with the stupid terms of the license agreement, have the card? >I guess they are relying on the honor system, for which they seem to >draw your contempt. What's your alternative, Mr. Smart Guy? They are not relying on the "honor system". If they were, there wouldn't be a little pass. They would only state "only used this software on one machine at a time". Instead, they decide to reduce programmers to children. >And what is your point? Some companies do use such schemes and I think >they are horrible. MS doesn't, and you think they stink. I wonder if >they could do anything that would meet with your approval? Point is, if they TRUELY wanted to enforce the terms of their license agreement, they would provide a means where only a single user could be using the package at a time. One of the parallel port plugs would accomplish exactly that. However, in doing this, there are a great number of people, who would return the software, as they do not purchase copy protected software. MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / They're not "bombs". -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / They're "gifts". -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / "Gifts From Above". -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
mpd@anomaly.SBS.COM (Michael P. Deignan) (02/25/91)
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) writes: >There is no difference of consequence between Borland's license and >Microsoft's. Does Borland include the little "pass" so programmers can use the bathroom? No? Guess that's one big difference, isn't it? MD -- -- Michael P. Deignan / They're not "bombs". -- Domain: mpd@anomaly.sbs.com / They're "gifts". -- UUCP: ...!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!mpd / "Gifts From Above". -- Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /
rcw@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Robert White) (02/25/91)
In article <70762@microsoft.UUCP> fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes: >I'm sure that we can all rationalize big companies like >Microsoft absorbing those costs, but little guys who put out quality products >can't absorb them. They often just quit producing software because they just >can't recoup their investment in research and development. If they don't quit, >they do jack up the price to offset the lost profits. That is not really how it works (well, most of the time). A new software program tends to be underpriced to capture market share (Quattro Pro, dBase IV 1.1). Then, once it has a good share of the market, they jack up the price (dBase III plus, Applause). Microsoft didn't follow the strategy with OS/2. OS/2 did not catch on. All of this falls apart when program is not a commodity, i.e. is a one-of-a-kind program. In that situation, the first company out with it sets the price, and the 'me-too' companies price based on the competition. It is always a mistake to low-ball your competition, unless you have that killer-app that is sure to take over the market by osmosis, somehow. -- Robert C. White, Jr. Right lane of .signature closed, merge left The WhiteStar Corporation /\/\ rcw@scicom.alphacdc.com The Owls are not what they seem. / \
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/26/91)
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >The big difference is in the way they present it. Well, I think you're getting all upset over nothing. But that's your right. -- Save water! Use disposable diapers.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (02/26/91)
rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: >It's a question of whether or >not I want to honor the license. If I don't observe that part, why should I >follow the rest of it? I guess if you can't distinguish between the important and the trivial, then you might conclude that as long as you're a law breaker when you drive at 56 MPH, you might as well go ahead and run red lights and otherwise endanger people's lives. -- Save water! Use disposable diapers.
phil@brahms.amd.com (Phil Ngai) (03/01/91)
In article <1991Feb27.070921.24117@qualcomm.com> rdippold@maui.qualcomm.com (Ron Dippold) writes: |>I guess if you can't distinguish between the important and the trivial, |>then you might conclude that as long as you're a law breaker when you |>drive at 56 MPH, you might as well go ahead and run red lights and |>otherwise endanger people's lives. | |I see... so my complaint about how Borland's licensing agreement is better than |Microsoft's is invalid, if you simply ignore all the parts of Microsoft's |license that don't agree with Borland's. That should make things much easier. |Ethics are _such_ a burden... For what I do, (we each mostly have licenses to all the applications we use) there isn't any difference between MS and Borland. Would you really observe Borland's license more strictly than you would MS's? If you object to the license card metaphor, do you go over to your colleague every time you want to write a memo to check if he's not using the word processor already? And he comes over to you. So what's the difference? -- San Jose to residents: "Drink Sewage!"