Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!gatech!mcnc!ecsvax!urjlew
From: urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP (Rostyk Lewyckyj)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga
Subject: Re: Used DPAINT [I & II] for sale
Summary: bringing the discussion back on track
Message-ID: <6834@ecsvax.UUCP>
Date: 18 Apr 89 22:07:14 GMT
References: <16386@oberon.USC.EDU> <6789@ecsvax.UUCP> <16404@oberon.USC.EDU> <16579@oberon.USC.EDU>
Organization: UNC Educational Computing Service
Lines: 43



When I originally posted on this topic following up Mr. Papas'
offer for resale of his originals of DPAINT [1I & II], I had the 
following ideas n mind.
Most/ all software sales are unstatedly intended to be understood
as perpetual licenses to use the software in one machine , and or one
execution of the software at a time. It is the executing process
that is being licensed, rather than the static copuy of the software.
This is a constant cause of confusion and causes the continuing
arguements about backups.
A software version update, for a reduced price, as opposed to a
purchase of a new copy (license) of the software, is intended as
an upgrade of the existing license. So there is still only one
license in effect. The original purchaser of the license or one
who has repurchased the license may keep and use all previous
versions of the softeware, as backups, and fall back versions, in
cases of incompatability of the new software with ... . For example
one may need to use the old version of some run time libraries,
with code compiled by a previous version of the compiler, especially
if the old source is not available, or would require much rework.
In offering to resell his disks, manuals, etc. of DPAINT [I & II]
it seemed that Mr. Papa was breaking at least the spirit of the
single use license. 
Therefore I wanted to know Mr. Papas' feelings on the morality and
legality of what he was doing. Especially since he is a software
developer and so his behaviour can and will be applied to his products.
Actually I don't think any questions of ethics apply in this case
because what Mr. Papa has done is the common and accepted mode of
behaviour (i.e ethical by definition).
Also copyrights are probably not directly at issue since I take it
that Mr. Papa did not keep any backups of DPAINT [ I or II] .
From Mr. Papas' postings I gather that he considers his actions
legal, ethical, and moral, and considers each version of his programs
as a seperate product and any upgrade as the equivalent of a new
license. Thus any copies of any version of his programs can be resold
as long as all materials pertaining to that version/copy are properly
transfered.
-----------------------------------------------
  Reply-To:  Rostyslaw Jarema Lewyckyj
             urjlew@ecsvax.UUCP ,  urjlew@unc.bitnet
       or    urjlew@tucc.tucc.edu    (ARPA,SURA,NSF etc. internet)
       tel.  (919)-962-9107