Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 11:35:36 07/21/98
Go up one level in this thread
On July 21, 1998 at 11:43:31, Fernando Villegas wrote: >No, Bruce, it's you that is missing the basic point: software is not the same You are not responding to me here, you are responding to Bob. >thing as a heap of money in the bank vault. It is intrinsic in its nature thee >likelihood to be copied, be for back-up or anything else. Anything else means an >ocassional copy to a friend, not of course thousands of copies for doing >business. As much as you can lend your car without automobile officers saying >you tou are stealing them a fraction of business, equally you can give an >ocassional copy witouth comitting your "larceny". Your car analogy is completely wrong. When you buy a car, there are a certain set of things you can do with it, and a certain set of things you can't do with it. Loaning your car to a friend is one of things you can do with your car. There is no way I am going to argue that you can't loan your car to your friend. When you buy software, you buy a license to use the software under a particular set of restrictions. This is the agreement that is made between you and the seller of the software. If you had proposed a different agreement with the seller, for instance that you be allowed to distribute copies to your friends, the seller would have had the opportunity to say no at that point, or to charge you more money, or to do whatever else they would have desired to do. But this didn't happen, you agreed to a specific set of valid uses, and if you go beyond that set of valid uses you are breaking the agreement between yourself and the seller, and there are legal remedies available to the seller in the unlikely event that you are caught. To say that because you "own" the CD you can do whatever you want with it, is simply factually incorrect. > That's the reason You cannot >analyze things just on the ground of the type letter printed in a box. What is >honest, tolerated, etc is a matter of costumes, uses, mores, etc. It seems you >live inside the world of a legal TV sopa opera, with Perry Mason as the maind >character. The reason you have juries and we have judges is precisely to examine >the specific things asociated with an eventual act. If not was so, it would be >enough just to consult the books. I am sure that Ed does not expect that when I >purchase his products I am, later, to refuse a copy to a friend if he ask one to >me. Would you do such a thing? He, Ed, knows that this kind of limited sharing >is part of the business and probably it is included in the price of each Rebel >he sell. I believe that I have Rebel 9, but I can't find it. Here is the Rebel 8 copyright notice, page 6 of the manual: "The REBEL 8.0 software is the exclusive property of Schroder BV and is protected by Dutch and International law. You are prohibited from transferring this product in any way or form whatsoever". On page 7 is a little more: "You have the possibility to install the program unlimited for personal use only from the original diskette." Here is an especially clear example from the Genius 5.0 manual, page 2: "You may not rent, lease, license or otherwise transfer the product, exept that you may transfer the entire Software Package on a permanent basis, proided that you transfer all copies and that the recipient agrees to the terms of this agreement." > Maybe in a pure theoretical world any of us should not share nothing >not even with your mother in order to respect the printed letters in the box, >but this is the real world and I am happy it is so and not one under the >surveillance of so an unflexible glance as yours. I think that your attitude results in a lot chess software authors with second jobs. bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.