Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site ulysses.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!floyd!whuxlb!pyuxll!eisx!npoiv!npois!hogpc!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!mhuxi!mhuxa!ulysses!smb
From: smb@ulysses.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.legal
Subject: Re: Legalities of copying software
Message-ID: <569@ulysses.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 23-Aug-83 08:57:28 EDT
Article-I.D.: ulysses.569
Posted: Tue Aug 23 08:57:28 1983
Date-Received: Wed, 24-Aug-83 12:10:59 EDT
References: <1837@rabbit.UUCP>
Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill
Lines: 12

rabbit!ark's recollection of the Computing Survey article agrees with my
own.  Let me make one further point:  software is often sold by contract
which imposes certain continuing obligations on the buyer.  What you are
buying is the right to *use* a certain program, subject to assorted
conditions and restrictions.  The case we're all familiar with is Bell's
UNIX(TM) license: it explicitly sets forth the conditions and fees for
redistribution, and in the educational variant prescribes what uses may
or may not be made of that software package.  Don't like it?  Tough -- the
author owns the program, and is entitled to impose such conditions.

The real answer to the original question, then, is this:  it depends on
how the software was originally sold, and under what conditions.