Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucdavis!deneb.ucdavis.edu!cck From: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: BISON, GCC, and the GNU public license Message-ID: <4989@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu> Date: 29 Jul 89 03:52:26 GMT References: <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <39129@sgi.SGI.COM> Sender: uucp@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu Reply-To: cck@deneb.ucdavis.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) Organization: University of California, Davis Lines: 24 In article <39129@sgi.SGI.COM> bron@bronze.wpd.sgi.com (Bron Campbell Nelson) writes: >In article <26719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, ked@garnet.berkeley.edu (Earl H. Kinmonth) writes: >I think the problem with the analogy is that it talks about sales. Try to >think about leasing instead. How about this: You rent me your car. The >next day you ask me what happened to it. My reply? "I sold it." I can see your point, but if software vendors are to claim that they are in effect "leasing" rather than selling, then it would seem to a naive soul like myself that they should provide the services of an owner. If I lease a piece of equipment and its craps out, the leasing company does not ask me to pay extra for a later version, they provide a substitute that works. With leasing, maintenance is typically the responsibility of the owner, not the user. Moreover, the analogy breaks down for tax purposes. Unless I am mistaken, the IRS treats the usual acquisition of software as a purchase, not a lease. It seems to me that software vendors having been having it both ways -- asserting the rights of an owner while ducking responsibilities. Naive me would like to see a grass roots movement to nail the bastards: either you make a quit claim sale or your rent it with full responsibility for maintainance.