Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!inmet!james
From: james@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Orphaned Response
Message-ID: <5800070@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 12:00:00 EST
Article-I.D.: inmet.5800070
Posted: Mon Jan 13 12:00:00 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Jan-86 21:06:27 EST
References: <9400009@uiucuxa.UUCP>
Lines: 22
Nf-ID: #R:uiucuxa:9400009:inmet:5800070:177600:979
Nf-From: inmet!james    Jan 13 12:00:00 1986


There are two groups of people that will be affected by this
law: the users and the retailers.  If retailers can be convinced
that software with unconscionable restricted licenses is not
profitable to carry, this will provide direct negative reinforcement
to those software publishers that do this. We can do this two
ways:
	1- refuse to buy software with restrictive license agreements
	(and loudly inform the retailer why).       

	2- If you have a mind for a little more forceful action, buy
	the software, take it home, return the next day and demand
	a refund.  If enough people do this, the retailer will get 
	very tired of processing refunds and may decide to quit
	stocking that software.

If we are going to boycott ADAPSO software, I suggest focusing the
efforts on some specific high-profile member (Lotus comes to mind),
and thereby  create a more demonstrable effect.  This is a 
technique successfully used by the United Farm Workers and others.

James Triplett