Re: Software 'licensing' <RANT>

[rubywand@swbell.net]

Christopher D. Heer writes ...
> 

> The example in question was a family that owns two computers and 
> installs a package on both because they couldn't afford two 
> copies.
> 
> Totally different situation.
>

     It is a different situation.

     A software maker would be within its rights to 
agressively oppose within-household copying. This is very rarely 
done. Standard practice is to permit a user within a typical family 
household to make copies for use on more than one machine or for 
use by more than one member of the family. It is not uncommon for 
software makers to facilitate or, even, promote multiple 
installations within a home.

     The rationale is, chiefly, good marketing. Being able to have 
multiple home in-use copies of programs like Copy II+ and 
Appleworks is an added value which makes the product more 
attractive to shoppers. Indeed, many home buyers simply assume that 
any piece of software is a 'family purchase' for use by any family 
member on any machine on which it will install in the home.

     Software makers are well aware that the chances of selling 
more than one copy of an item to a household are just about zero. 
To forcefully insist (e.g. via specific, attention-getting notices 
on the box) that an item absolutely must not be used on more than 
one machine, etc. in a home would have the net effect of reducing 
sales.

     Again, we are talking about 'accepted practice' widely 
condoned by software makers. The legal prohibition against 
copyright violation must remain relatively simple and clear cut in 
order to facilate actions by software makers against commercial 
buyers and those who employ bogus definitions of "family" or "home" 
(e.g. a college dorm).


Rubywand