Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird1!rb
From: rb@ccird1.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.micro.mac
Subject: Re: Facist Licensing Agreement
Message-ID: <521@ccird1.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 23-Jun-86 23:31:17 EDT
Article-I.D.: ccird1.521
Posted: Mon Jun 23 23:31:17 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 28-Jun-86 05:08:04 EDT
References: <1012@spice.cs.cmu.edu> <12021@amdcad.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird1.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI Rochester Development, Rochester NY
Lines: 64
Summary: Good Idea, Thanx Apple.

In article <12021@amdcad.UUCP> jimb@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes:
>> 
>> I found the following "Agreement", relating to the electronic distribution of
>> the System, Finder, Font/DA Mover, and other related programs, in a file that
>> was in in one of the GENIE downloading areas.  It seems to prohibit:
>> 
>You seem upset with the fact that Apple wishes to limit public distribution
>of software which will be construed in the public eye as 'APPLE' software
>to people whom Apple can reasonably guarantee will distribute a clean 'as
>delivered by Apple' copy of the software.
>Scenario:
>
>Apple, pulling out license distribution agreement, and user manual
>says, "Only software obtained from legally licensed distribution
>points is legitimate software."
>
>Scenario 2:
>	Apple distributes the software without a restrictive license
>agreement.
>
>	Erata Computer Co. gets a copy of it, reverse engineers it,
>uses a substantial portion of it in their Erata MacBuster Computer.

	Like Atari/MacCartridge? :-).
>
>	Apple sues. Erata lawyers say, "You distributed the software
>with no restrictions on its use or further distribution. We obtained it
>through this distribution by you, Apple. Therefore we have a right to
>use it any way we wish."
>
>	Apple loses this one, including a lot of valuble 
>intellectual knowledge which they spent a lot of bucks developing.
>

Scenario 3:
	Apple doesn't distribute via BBS, but sells upgrades through
	dealers.  Distribution costs are too high, so price is high,
	say $35-100/copy.  1 million Mac users scream "foul", more
	bad will.

It is nice to see someone use a BBS for distributing software.  OK,
so it costs a little bit extra, isn't $6 better than $60?  If you
don't have compuserve or whatever, you can still get it from a friend
who does, he just has to pay for two downloads, and probably pass the
cost on to you.  Perhaps where many copies are needed, a call to Apple
would yield an agreement, including a modest but reasonable fee, to
allow "authorised" reproduction for the specified number of copies.

I read the agreement, which is not much different than some of the "shrink
wrap" agreements on most software.  Apple had a good idea, using these
commercial BBS's as a distribution/sales network makes a lot of sense.

I hate "percieved value" prices, and "because you opened this, I own anything
you might write" agreements as much as anyone.  I also hate copy-protection,
"cute messages" and some of the other nonsense this industry tries to pull
off.  I hope people honor Apple's terms, maybe we'll see more of this
kind of distribution.

Instead of Flames, I'm giving a big Cheer to Apple.  Ya done good.
(I haven't been this charitable to Apple since the Mac came out :-).

Maybe these "commercial boards" can work out some royalty agreements.
It would certainly increase my usage if I found more worth the $6/hr
connect time, even at 300 baud.  Anyone for "Turbo" via BBS?