Re: Software 'licensing' <RANT>

[inwards@netrover.com (Ed Armstrong)]

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.