Gregg wrote:
> This is an interesting topic and I'd like to know more...As I understand it,
> software manufacturers (those who do it for money) enjoy the same rights that
....
> it from a third party. Is this legal if the original copy of the software was
> purchased legitimately and sold by the owner because he no longer required it?
> What if this type of rule started applying to other items like cars - something
> stinks - can anyone shed some light?
I have not bought M$ for a few years but the licenses prob have not
changed much. I'm not a lawer either so my opinions here are from what I
understand of the licences that I have paid for and agreed to. Read
carefully the conditions, many of the licences are quite clear that they
are a **lease**. You are not purchasing the software but agreeing to a
lease. For the Microsoft ones M$ still own the software and can
terminate your lease at any time. Thats why it can't be onsold later,
unlike a book. Its like you leased a car.
Oh BTW I do consider a lease perfectly fine as an agreement betwen
vendor and purchaser for software. The average user (or company) never
reads that licence and think they own the software. If consumers don't
want a lease and want to actually **own** the software its up to them to
vote with their $ and buy from places that sell software rather than
lease it with. Of course upgrades then might cost more ;-)
Mike
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Lake
University of Technology, Sydney
Email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Ph: 02 9514 1724 Fx: 02 9514 1628
URL: http://www.science.uts.edu.au/~mikel
Linux enthusiast, active caver and interested in anything technical.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
