Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!noose.ecn.purdue.edu!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!purdue!haven!mimsy!mojo!SYSMGR@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU
From: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOFTWARE
Message-ID: <0094412F.E4DAF400@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU>
Date: 11 Feb 91 18:50:51 GMT
References: <3929@orbit.cts.com> <70478@microsoft.UUCP>,<6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Reply-To: sysmgr@KING.ENG.UMD.EDU (Doug Mohney)
Organization: The U. of MD, CP, CAD lab
Lines: 23

In article <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>, jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>
>>The reality is, at least where Microsoft software is concerned, is that you
>>are specifically prohibited from selling previous releases of updated software.
>>Our licensing agreement says:
>
>Which of course is rubbish.  No license contract exists.  That piece of 
>paper that Microsoft calls a "License agreement" is simply a waste of
>ink and paper.  I've had the occasion
>to discuss this very issue with my copyright lawyer.  Every time I ask something
>along these lines, he replies with the same statement.  

[detailed discussion on rights, agreements, and lawyers cut]

This reminds me of the foolishness printed on the dBase II (?) agreement.
Allegedly, you did not "own" the software, but merely purchased a 99 year lease
on it, if you took a look at the fine print. Kinda wondered what those people
were smokin' in the early '90s. 


 Doug Mohney, Operations Manager, CAD Lab/ME, Univ. of Maryland College Park
	        *       Ray Kaplan for DECUS president     *
                          SYSMGR@CADLAB.ENG.UMD.EDU