On Thu, 28 Mar 2002, Roy Wood wrote: > But that is actually the case if you click the 'accept' box in Windoze. > You are not legally entitled to sell your copy of Windoze 98 on to > another user even if you have stopped using it yourself. It is all there
In the US at least, that clause was deemed unlawful, because of the First Sale doctrine. A minor point, but one which is important if you're Microsoft. > This whole argument has been splitting hairs > and blurring what is, in fact, a very simple attempt to give you more > say in what direction SMSQ/E takes whilst maintaining a stable platform. Splitting hairs is exactly what is required. I think it's better to constructively split hairs now, before the license is adopted, than have to split hairs later, after it is adopted and it's hard to impose amended conditions on existing users under the old license. > My point entirely. That is what Q Branch is. I lose money on Q Branch > but I do it because I enjoy using the system, I like the people and it > gives Jochen and I an excuse to meet up for a meal in a foreign country. > I have done this for eight years now and Jochen has done it for far > longer. If either of us did this for money we would be long gone. This license must obviously protect you, but as resellers, your support role extends only to people who purchased directly from you. You're under no obligation to support users who bought from someone else. Though, knowing you Roy, you would probably give it your best shot anyway ;) Anyway, I expressed my concern, and people are now well aware of it. Either the license will change, and I can work with SMSQ, or it won't and I can't, and... (At this point, I wrote 5 paragraphs on this, but held off posting and reread and decided to delete them. It was rehashing what was already said, and therefore not constructive.) The biggest benefit of the source release will be, I suspect, not in OS development but in application and driver development, as people can look at the OS source and say "Ahah!" and improve their own projects. Anyway, it's not an exclusive license, so there's always room for a developer's license with more developer-friendly conditions. Probably with a different QDOSesque OS. The future will tell... Dave PS: I tire of my devil's advocate role in the search of the perfect license. I shall now retire to the shadows and see what changes, or doesn't. Hopefully, everything will continue to be this reasoned and constructive. :o)
