Re: Official and LEGAL ways to emulate Apple II?

[russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto)]

In article <jalapeno1-9AD40A.17442007052003@nntp.mindspring.com>,
Jalapeno  <jalapeno1@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <feycnWflveIS1SSjXTWcqQ@speakeasy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>
>> In article <jalapeno1-1D74FD.17160606052003@nntp.mindspring.com>,
>> Jalapeno  <jalapeno1@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >One buys a license to run the software, not the software itself. 
>> 
>> One buys a copy of the software, not a mere license to run it.  A
>> license implies a continuing relationship with the licensor, which
>> simply doesn't exist.
>
>No, one buys a license, i.e. permission to use the software (and the 
>media, if it comes on some). A license to drive is not the card you 
>carry, but permission to operate a motorized vehicle on public roadways. 
>A license for software is permission to use the software. The copy of 
>the software is merely a necessity of distribution.

In copyright law, owning a copy of the software is sufficient to
attain the right to use it.  "Use" is not one of the exclusive rights
of the copyright owner, so no permission from the copyright owner is
required to use the copy of the software you own.  Ephemeral copies
made during normal use from a copy you own are specifically allowed
without permission from the copyright owner, as are backup copies.
There is no need for a license.

>A relationship with the licensor is not implied, to my knowledge, unless 
>you know of a court decision of which I'm not aware.

Softman v. Adobe. (or was it vice-versa?  Sorry, no full cite handy)
One of the factors used by the court in distinguishing between sale of
a copy of software and licensing of the software.

-- 
Matthew T. Russotto                            mrussotto@speakeasy.net
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."  But extreme restriction of liberty in pursuit of 
a modicum of security is a very expensive vice.