9 May
2007
9 May
'07
1:55 p.m.
On Wed, 2007-05-09 at 07:49 -0500, Jay West wrote:
. . . Some software is sold (implying a transfer of
ownership), some
software is licensed (implying only a right-to-use).
Several court decisions about software (dates uncertain) made it at
least seem important to software companies that they license software,
rather than sell it.
Separately, there can also be conditions on either
transaction
as to reverse engineering, re-sale or re-licensing, subletting
or "rental", partial inclusion in derivative works, etc.
Yes, that was the substance of the decisions I mention above. It
was determined that if you buy a product, you have the right to reverse
engineer, rent, transfer, or essentially do anything you wish with it.
"Okay, fine, we won't sell it any more" was the response of the software
industry, almost to a company.
The simple answer - just because you received a
machine with a valid license
doesn't neccessarily mean that license is valid to you. It may be. It might
not be.
Exactly. What you can do, and what you actually HAVE, in a software
licensing agreement, depends entirely upon the agreement itself.
Naturally enough, those agreements, written by the software company's
attorneys, strongly favor the company.
To confuse matters more - I have seen various software
packages where the
policy changed over time. For example - early on in a software products life
it may have been sold to each customer outright (while copyright was
retained of course). Then later versions were only licensed.
Yes. After the decisions, many companies dropped their sales
programs in favor of licensing. Licensing generated much more income
for the software companies, as transfers of equipment generally resulted
in additional licensing fees from the new owners. Voila! An industry
is born.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net