Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!zehntel!hplabs!sri-unix!Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA
From: Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Recent flame on single CPU software licenses
Message-ID: <610@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 2-Apr-84 16:03:36 EST
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.610
Posted: Mon Apr  2 16:03:36 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 19-Apr-84 03:12:02 EST
Lines: 30

From:  Larry Seiler <Seiler@MIT-XX.ARPA>

Dear jpm,

Even supposing that the support for two machines costs no more than 
for one (what if they are different machines running different versions 
of the code), why shouldn't a software house want to get paid for each 
copy of its software that is run?  Is that greed?  If so, then what word
describes your attitude of refusing to pay them?  Or when you said
that you were "forced to sign" the agreement, did you mean that two
tough guys came over and beat you into submission?  Gimme a break!

Many people have made rational comments on the problems of software
piracy and restrictive software licenses.  You are not in that group.
While a no-exceptions single CPU license may be too restrictive, there
has to be SOME restriction or else all the software houses will go out
of business.  What should it be?  All computers owned by one person?
All computers owned by a single business?  Does anybody really think that
a copmpany with 50 PC's running text editors should pay the same for that
text editor as a company with only one PC?  Clearly, there should be some
middle ground between paying once for 50 copies and paying 50 times.  In a
business setting, this middle ground is sometimes called "volume discount".
Some more flexible policies for non-business users should also be available.
If anyone has rational suggestions, you are welcome to reply.  If anyone
takes the attitude that they have a right to whatever they want, and will
lie to get it, please crawl in a hole.

	Larry Seiler
	Seiler@MIT-XX
-------