🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <6207@milton.u.washington.edu> ashing@milton.u.washington.edu (Al Shing) writes:
>
>In loaning out a book, one still retains the plot or knowledge of what was in
>the book.  Whether or not the original copy is retained does not change this.

Oh? How about reference books? Do you keep in your head all of the information
in your CRC Handbooks? Computer programs aren't fictions; they are tools. 
>
>Another bone of contention is the one copy per CPU policy, which is analogous
>to saying that if you buy a video tape, you can only watch it on one VCR, or
>if you read a book at home, or on a bus, or at work, you need a separate copy
>for each place.  The latter is not the case, so why is the former the case?

One copy per CPU is questionable; I agree with you there. However, one
copy in use at a time is fair. (If you are reading the book on the bus,
your roommate can't be reading the book at home. If you are running the
computer program at work, your wife can't be running a "xerox" of the
same program at home. This is the essence of the "Borland no-nonsense
license.")
>
>Nobody is talking about selling taped copies of broadcast music or TV 
>programming here, nor are we talking about selling copies of computer programs.

Giving away copies of copyrighted material is as wrong as selling it.
Look at the word again: "copyright". The law allows the owner of the
copyright to limit who may make copies, and under what conditions.