Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA From: matt@UCLA-LOCUS.ARPA Newsgroups: net.micro Subject: Re: Seiler@Mit-XX's reply to my single CPU license flame Message-ID: <12046@sri-arpa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 3-Apr-84 03:14:33 EST Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.12046 Posted: Tue Apr 3 03:14:33 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 03:09:19 EST Lines: 27 From: Matthew J. Weinstein When you buy a (major) piece of software, you must usually sign a contractual agreement. If you don't, you don't get the product (unless you steal it). Contracts written by software companies for consumers are typically one-sided. Why shouldn't they be? They have very little to lose. When was the last time you refused to buy a product because of arbitrary contractual restrictions? [Of course, there is a group of people, with multiple cpu's, who either have to buy multiple copies, negotiate a multi-copy license, or assume some risk of liability when using a single copy on multiple machines]. There are only a few (simple) techniques (that I know of) that would give the buyer enough leverage to make a company change its tack: Quantity purchases: these are generally made by a single organization, and do not help others in a similar situation. Buying organizations: these could include consumer's groups or purchasing organizations. These could be quite effective for their membership, depending on structure. Perhaps it's time to investigate the second alternative. - Matt