Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!jpm@BNL44.ARPA
From: jpm@BNL44.ARPA (John McNamee)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Software License Bill - California
Message-ID: <10679@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Wed, 15-May-85 00:51:19 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.10679
Posted: Wed May 15 00:51:19 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 16-May-85 20:38:04 EDT
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 56

>Could somebody post a short summary of this bill and an argument
>against it?

I'll be happy to provide an argument against it. I'll leave a summary to
somebody who is a bit more impartial than myself. I think this bill is
total bullshit and I'm in no position to write an unbiased summary.

If this bill passes, software publishers can force all sorts of punitive
restrictions on the use of software that you buy. They can:

* Prohibit you from running the software on more than one machine. I mean
  "one machine" quite literally. Not just one machine at once, but that
  the software can be tied to a single system, and if that system happens
  to go down, you aren't allowed to use the program on another system.

* Prohibit you from making backup copies. It will be a violation of the
  license agreement to safegaurd your data and the program itself from
  disk crashes. Remember this fact about disks: You don't ask if it will
  crash, you ask when.

* Prohibit you from making patches to the program, or disassembling it.
  You will not be able to alter the program to suit your needs. You
  will be at the mercy of the software vendor for all updates and fixes.
  Do you know what happens when somebody comes to a large vendor asking
  for a custom change? The vendor either asks them to pay megabucks, or
  more likely tells them to get lost. This restriction is made worse by
  the fact that the vendor can (and almost always will) claim that the
  software is licnesed on an as-is basis, and that they are not required
  to fix bugs (or if they do provide updates, they can charge a fortune
  for them).

* Prohibit you from selling the program, even if you no longer need it.
  Can you imagine buying a car or a house under these terms? Once you
  buy it, you are stuck with it, even if you can't use it.

There are many fields that are facing the same sort of problems as the
software industry, but they are not trying to solve their problems by
passing bullshit laws such as this one. The copyright laws provide all
the protection a software company needs to safegaurd their products.
Punitive license agreements are not needed, and give the publisher an
unfair advantage. The buyer is given no rights, and they assume all the
risk. Ask yourself if you would buy anything else under the sort of terms
I have detailed above. I sure as hell wouldn't, and I don't think you
would either.

You may also notice that none of the license restrictions can really be
enforced by a software publisher. People WILL make backups (using programs
that will break copy protection schemes), they WILL use the software on
other than the one machine it is authorized to run on, they WILL patch and
disassemble the program, and they WILL sell their copy when they have no
further need of it. This law is unenforcable. We don't need another such
law on our books, nor do we need a new class of "criminals" who by following
common sense have broken some license agreement they never even signed.


		John McNamee	jpm@BNL44.ARPA