Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!usc!hacgate!ashtate!dbase!tomr
From: tomr@dbase.A-T.COM (Tom Rombouts)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.misc
Subject: Re: LEGALITY OF SELLING SOFTWARE
Message-ID: <1991Feb13.174435.27204@dbase.A-T.COM>
Date: 13 Feb 91 17:44:35 GMT
References: <3929@orbit.cts.com> <70478@microsoft.UUCP> <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com>
Reply-To: tomr@dbase.UUCP (Tom Rombouts)
Organization: Ashton-Tate
Lines: 32

In article <6834@rsiatl.Dixie.Com> jgd@Dixie.Com (John G. DeArmond) writes:
>fredf@microsoft.UUCP (Fred FREELAND) writes:

  [ debate over legality of individuals selling prior versions of
    software that they had upgraded deleted ]

Without really venturing into this fray, I would like to suggest that
public advocacy might be a faster way to resolve this issue.  Say,
for example, there was a company in Redmond that said selling prior
versions of its software was illegal, while a company in, say, 
Scott's Valley, said such re-selling was fine with them.  All other
things being equal, this might be one more reason _not_ to purchase
software from the company in Redmond. 

You can say what you will about our capitalist system, but you cannot
deny that companies eventually (sometimes, however, _very_ slowly)
respond to the desires of consumers.  Look how MS-DOS software copy
protection is essentially a thing of the past in the U.S. and Canada
due mostly to public pressure and outcry.

I would say if there is something you do not like about a vendor's
policies, and the vendor will not respond, then tell the world.
USENET, FidoNet, User Groups, and the computer trades are all
readily accesable forums for such debate.  If enough people agree,
things will change.


(Disclaimer:  Yes, I work for a large, sometimes controversial
software company.  The above opinions are mine and mine alone.)


Tom Rombouts  'Torrance Tater  tomr@ashtate.A-T.com