Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!think!snorkelwacker!spdcc!esegue!johnl
From: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Old Software: what's legal/ethical?
Keywords: copyright, licenses
Message-ID: <1990Jan5.034151.5415@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us>
Date: 5 Jan 90 03:41:51 GMT
References: <1990Jan4.152944.8744@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu> <491@thirdi.UUCP>
Reply-To: johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us (John R. Levine)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Segue Software, Cambridge MA
Lines: 19

In article <491@thirdi.UUCP> peter@thirdi.UUCP (Peter Rowell) writes:
>[In response to a question re giving away the old version when you get
>an update:]
>Interesting question.  Speaking as a developer, I would say that you
>own one right-to-use (RTU) license, ...

Ah, but in the absence of a signed license agreement, there's little reason
to believe that there is any license at all.  (As I previously noted, shrink
wrap licenses appear to be unenforcable.)  This means that we're relying on
copyright law, and it's hard to think of an analogous case where a new version
of a document is considered to be inseparable from the old version.

Seems to me that the best solution is for developers to make sure that the
new version is so much better that nobody wants the old version any more.

-- 
John R. Levine, Segue Software, POB 349, Cambridge MA 02238, +1 617 864 9650
johnl@esegue.segue.boston.ma.us, {ima|lotus|spdcc}!esegue!johnl
"Now, we are all jelly doughnuts."