Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site uwmacc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster
From: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Your software rights are in danger
Message-ID: <1865@uwmacc.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 30-Dec-85 12:58:29 EST
Article-I.D.: uwmacc.1865
Posted: Mon Dec 30 12:58:29 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 1-Jan-86 00:59:40 EST
Reply-To: oyster@uwmacc.UUCP (Vicious Oyster)
Distribution: net
Organization: UWisconsin-Madison Academic Comp Center
Lines: 58

<>
In the current software licensing discussion (most of which has been highly
entertaining, if not informative), there have been several recurring points
which I haven't seen dealt with to my satisfaction.

From Henry Schaeffer (sorry if I misspelled your name; my fingers work
faster than my brain):
>...such things as apartment leases usually prohibit modifications, including 
>putting tacks in the walls, and signing the lease means you agree with the 
>terms.

   True, but a lease can be read beforehand, and there is the important
legal aspect of the possibility of negotiation, which seems to be absent
in the Illinois law.  Another thing about a lease is that you can see the
apartment beforehand.  Does the law in question (or any existing law)
provide for "seeing" (using) the software before "signing the agreement"
(opening the package)?

From Tim Smith:
>Why would you buy such a car?  Don't all the proposed lawa require the
>agreement to be clearly visable and labeled?  If you see a product with
>an agreement you are not willing to follow, then don't buy it!
...
>What I really don't understand is why people object to being required to
>honor voluntary agreements.  You are not forced to buy a product with
>a license agreement you do not like.  You are allowed to return it if
>you buy it by mistake.  What's the beef?

  As for buying the car, see the above regarding apartment rents.  The car
in question can be examined before buying it.  Not so for software.  The other
question doesn't seem relevant to me.  The law will make legal the currently
questionable shrink-wrap agreements.  It will make acceptance of an utterly
non-negotiable license mandatory upon opening a package which can contain
absolutely nothing.  So I either accept it, or buy nothing.
  Returning to the car analogy, the kind of "lemon law" referenced was 
passed to protect the unsuspecting and unknowledgable average consumer from
being taken by dishonest used car salespeople.  A knowledgable auto mechanic
should have no need of that law.  Most people using this forum are fairly
knowledgable about computers and software, and hence are in the same
position regarding software as the mechanic is regarding cars.  Can you
accept that even though *we* may be too smart to be duped, most people
aren't?

Which brings me to the following, from Bennett E. Todd III:
>It has been said before in this forum, but allow me to repeat: as long
>as the laws aren't forcing you to buy the software, then don't worry so
>much about the laws themselves; instead, boycott those companies that
>use abusive licensing agreements, or copy protection...

   And if a law is passed which seems to encourage use of "abusive
licensing agreements, or copy protection [a separate issue, to my mind]",
what do we do with our computers?  I certainly don't have the time,
inclination, or resources to write a C compiler, spreadsheet, word processor,
or text adventure every time I want one.  When all software use is
uniformly restricted, what can we do?  It makes a helluva lot more sense
to try to stop such laws, rather than live with 'em once they're here.

 - Joel ({allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!oyster)