Re: Software 'licensing' <RANT>

[eefacdk@acmey.gatech.edu (RICHARD KENAN)]

Ed Armstrong (inwards@netrover.com) wrote:
: In article <5g78fp$n62@news.stolaf.edu>, handel@stolaf.edu says...
: >
: >Christopher D. Heer <cheer@i.hate.spam> wrote:
: >: The example in question was a family that owns two computers and installs a 
: >: package on both because they couldn't afford two copies.
: >
: >This is the way I've always understood the law (and please correct me
: >if I'm wrong): It is perfectly fine and legal to buy one copy of a
: >program and put it on 2 computers _IF_ you can be 100% sure that only
: >one copy of it is running at once.  The moment you run the same
: >program on two different computers at once is the moment you're
: >breaking the law.

: Actually, there is _nothing_ in the law books that says this.  It all comes 
: down to a software company's individual licensing policies.  Take Microsoft, 
: for
: instance.  You can legally take a copy of MS Office and load it on every
: computer in your house - for _you_ to use.  It is licensed _per user_.  On
: the other hand, you can't do the same thing at work - you need one copy per
: employee.  Lotus & Corel also do this.  Symantec doesn't.

: For their operating systems, MS specifies that you must own one copy of the 
: OS for every machine - regardless of whether they're running at the same
: time or not.  This seems to be the attitude of Apple // software publishers.

The problem is, to enforce most of these restricted licenses,
you have to convince a jury of two things.  The first is just
plain impossible.  You have a legally protected right to make
as many backup copies of your software as you want.  Any judge
in America, and presumably in other countries with similar
laws, will instruct a jury to accept this as factual regardless
of any fine print the software company thinks binds you not to
make backups.  So, if I've installed a program on 3 computers,
but I only use one at a time, the other two are backup copies.

The second thing to convince the jury is that you cannot sell
something you bought.  That is, the company has to make some kind
of case that you didn't buy anything, you just rented the program,
regardless of whether this is totally counter to what is actually
happening.  You see, if you bought it, you can give it away to
somebody else.  Not the software itself, of course, the software
publisher will always own it, but the license to use it.  And if
you can give away the license, then you can give it to somebody
else while they use it, and they'll give it back when they're
done.  At all times, the owner of the license was using his
program in accordance with the license, or at least those parts
of it that are legally enforceable.  Most of that license crap
you see written down is pure garbage to intimidate ignorant
people, so they'll pay attention to the parts that are actually
meaningful.

Note that corporate licenses are a different matter.  They're 
made with entirely different premises, and it's entirely possible
that they might be made with the explicit term that the license
is not transferrable.  But a personal use license is unlikely to
hold up with any strenuous court case.  If you use your software
like a book, you're wildly unlikely to come into the attention
of any software company for license violation in the first place,
and if you do, you have an excellent chance of winning any kind
of court case.

Just me.

--
Richard Kenan
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
uucp:     ...!{allegra,amd,hplabs,ut-ngp}!gatech!prism!eefacdk
Internet: eefacdk@prism.gatech.edu