22 Jun
2000
22 Jun
'00
10:58 a.m.
If you read the license of most software you will find
that it says You
don't own it and that "you" are licensed to use it. Cars are bought
outright IE: they are property. Software for the most part is "rented"
for lack of a better word.
What we need to know, is who (what corporate representative) was the
first person to capitulate to the robber barons by being willing to sign
a software license that granted only the right to use said software.
Once one corporation capitulated, the rest were bound to follow.
We could make that person number one in the Computing Hall of Shame.
Hell hath no flames hot enough for that person...
-dq
22 Jun
22 Jun
11:27 a.m.
If you read
the license of most software you will find that it says You
don't own it and that "you" are licensed to use it. Cars are bought
outright IE: they are property. Software for the most part is "rented"
for lack of a better word.
What we need to know, is who (what corporate representative) was the
first person to capitulate to the robber barons by being willing to sign
a software license that granted only the right to use said software.
Once one corporation capitulated, the rest were bound to follow.
We could make that person number one in the Computing Hall of Shame.
Hell hath no flames hot enough for that person...
-dq 
12:40 p.m.
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: text
Size: 1704 bytes
Desc: not available
Url :
http://www.classiccmp.org/pipermail/cctalk/attachments/20000622/e3f71213/at…
1:46 p.m.
On Thu, 22 Jun 2000, Tony Duell wrote:
[Software licenses and transfers]
And to thicken the plot a bit further, how about software that came
bundled with the machine, and was not specifically purchased by the
owner? The OEM can give it away as an inducement to purchase his
machine, but the purchaser cannot? Please!!!
- don
Kindly take your free software whine elsewhere.
If you want to write
software and give it away that's your business. If someone else wants to
This has _NOTHING_ to do with free software.
Nobody is denying %computer-company's right to be paid for their
software. And for them to charge what the heck they like for their
software. Or that it should be illegal to make copies of that software
(other than for backups, etc)
But if I go out and buy a book, or a video tape of a movie or a music CD
or similar products, well, no I can't legally make copies of them. That's
reasonable enough. But if I decide I no longer want that book/movie/CD
then I can give it to my friend, I can sell it second-hand, etc.
If I _rent_ a movie from the local video shop then I have it for a
limited time that's agreed before I buy it. And obviously I can't pass it
on to anyone else.
Software licenses, though, are often like neither of those. It appears
that I pay a one-off fee to %computer-company which lets _me_ use that
software for as long as I want, but if I no longer want it, I can't
give/sell it to anyone else (note : I am assuming here that I wouldn't be
keeping a copy myself if I did this). This, I think, is the point that
most people have a problem with. It seems a little silly that if somebody no longer
wants their PDP11 +
software, they can give away the hardware but the new owner can't run the
software, even though the previous owner could have goen on running the
machine if he'd wanted to
write software and sell right to use licenses
that's their business.
It is theire business, but it doesn't mean I have to like it!
-tony
1:26 p.m.
Zane replied to Allison:
Do you have any understanding of the computer
industry? Do you have any
understanding of computers larger than your Windows box? Do you even look
at the licenses of any software you have purchased? I'm fairly sure you
don't remember the days when you didn't even own the computer, you rented
it, or rented time on one.
And in the days before you rented the software for the mainframe from the
vendor, you got the software for FREE from the vendor. Allison correctly
pointed out that before some point these damn software licenses didn't
exist.
1:46 p.m.
Zane replied to Allison:
Except I wasn't replying to Allison. I know she knows what's going on :^)
Zane
Do you have any understanding of the computer
industry? Do you have any
understanding of computers larger than your Windows box? Do you even look
at the licenses of any software you have purchased? I'm fairly sure you
don't remember the days when you didn't even own the computer, you rented
it, or rented time on one.
And in the days before you rented the software for the mainframe from the
vendor, you got the software for FREE from the vendor. Allison correctly
pointed out that before some point these damn software licenses didn't
exist.
7:32 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: <healyzh(a)aracnet.com>
To: <classiccmp(a)classiccmp.org>
Sent: Friday, June 23, 2000 5:57 AM
Subject: Re: Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?
Personally I both sell and give away the software I
write, depending
on the
program.
I have no problem with people selling licenses etc. Since by it's
nature, it's possible to use it on more than one machine per copy.
(Unlike a book, the most common comparison). So a license to use rather
than an ownership of the product is not unreasonable. What I find
objectionable and (to me) unreasonable, is the requirement to pay
ridiculous sums for a new license when a machine changes hands. Ie the
original owner is not allowed to even give away his right to use the
software to someone else. That's ridiculous.
(Some licenses are still like that AFAIK)
Hypothetical (well, mostly) Example.
Joe Bloggs buys a Ubeaut computer and buys BeautOS to run on it, with
several 'embedded' apps that
do various things, like networking etc.
Uses it for some years. Then falls victim to the Microsoft conspiracy
and buys
a PC and Win98.
The Ubeaut sits in a back room for a year or two, then is sold
to another individual to use. The original owner has no use for the O/S
(it only runs on
a UBeaut) so he gives him the disks/paperwork etc. The new owner calls
the Ubeaut
company to transfer the license to himself, only to be told he can't do
so and must buy a complete
new license.. He then discovers that 'embedded products' are also not
transferable, and he must buy them as well. When he challenged this he
was told that the company does not bind the license to the machine it
was bought for (though indeed it checks the hardware and will only
install on that machine) but to the original purchaser, who cannot
transfer the license to another party, but has it for life. The
original owner's license is
such that he may surrender it to the company (but not for any
recompense) or he may keep it, but may not dispose of it in any other
way.
I have seen variants of this, some applied to the O/S, some applied only
to certain 'layered products' or both. Theoretically, if the machine
and the copy of the software on it change hands X times, the company
wants X license fees. I feel this is somewhat overdoing it. I'm not
going to pick on any particular company here, many have policies like
this for some things. Some have been good enough to provide hobbyist
licenses for people that just want to tinker, but still think people
with a s/h system & s/h software for commercial use should pay new
prices for a license they already sold for that machine.
Zane (who is sick and tired about people whining
about
non-free software)
All software can't be free. Programmers have to eat. I don't have a
problem with that.
Just my 0.02c worth, you may have a different slant on things..
Cheers
Geoff Roberts
Computer Systems Manager
Saint Mark's College
Port Pirie,
South Australia
geoffrob(a)stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au
netcafe(a)tell.net.au
ICQ: 1970476
11:57 a.m.
New subject: Licensed Software (was RE: Should I add a "Micro" PDP11/73 to the Herd?)
Look, if it were a simple issue it wouldn't hang around. It isn't.
Generally, if your only experience with software is as an end user you
won't understand the issue. There are lots of comparisons (generally
involving real property and intellectual property) that make good jokes but
lousy talking points. The bottom line is that it is up to the person who
creates the software to decide what they want to allow.
--Chuck
8802
days inactive
8802
days old
7 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
ard＠p850ug1.demon.co.uk -
cmcmanis＠mcmanis.com -
dhquebbeman＠theestopinalgroup.com -
donm＠cts.com -
eric＠brouhaha.com -
geoffrob＠stmarks.pp.catholic.edu.au -
healyzh＠aracnet.com