Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!princeton!caip!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!spice.cs.cmu.edu!tdn
From: tdn@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Newton)
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Fascist Licensing Agreement
Message-ID: <1018@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: Fri, 20-Jun-86 15:26:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: spice.1018
Posted: Fri Jun 20 15:26:11 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 22-Jun-86 04:12:19 EDT
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 25

> 1) All of this hassle has been because Apple didn't do things the way YOU
> want them done.  Nobody seems to have stopped and considered whether what
> YOU wanted was also in the interests of Apple.

Why should we be giving special treatment to Apple's interests?  They don't
seem to have given much thought to our interests in this matter.  To be quite
honest with you, I'd be just as happy with *no restrictions at all* as with
restrictions designed to keep the software on Apple-manufactured machines, but
I don't have any problems living with the latter.  The restrictions that cause
problems for Mac owners are another thing entirely...

> I won't claim that the agreement is perfect from the users point of view,

Certainly the understatement of the year, as it appears that even installing
fonts and DAs into an electronically-distributed System may be prohibited.

> but look at the alternatives

Yes, look at the alternatives.  They could have written it so that it only
restricted use of the software to Apple computers, and only posed the burden
upon users of giving out copies of the license with copies of the System (so
Commodore or Atari couldn't bypass it by obtaining a second-hand copy).  But
they didn't; instead they let their lawyers run wild.

                                        -- Thomas Newton