🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Feb12.200901.9129@hellgate.utah.edu> bangell%peruvian.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Bob Angell) writes:
|The whole idea of "blanket-protection" assumed by Microsoft and other software
|vendors is repulsive and as stated previously is pure BUNK!  They may glory in
|their assumptions, but to enforce every perceived 'violation' (term used 
|extremely loosely in this context!) is absurd!
|
|Others may have a need but not the $$$ for such software, hence the 2nd-hand
|market.  In some cases, it actually helps the vendors to receive new users
|through these methods.  But if companies, like Microsoft, want to beat-up on
|small-time users through threats and intimidation, in the end, it only hurts
|the company!  So whats all the bitching and moaning about anyway?  It looks 
|like a win-win situation!  Lets not see Microsoft and others be another LOTUS 
|with all of its protectionism!!!

Independently of the question of the validity of shrink-wrap licenses,
which is not unique to Microsoft, I feel that Microsoft's license terms
are extremely reasonable.  Can anyone other than Richard Stallman
honestly say they believe they have or should have a right to give away
free copies of a Microsoft product?

Consider that the newer products like Word for Windows have the concept
of a printed "license" card which you receive when you purchase the
software package. The person who is the physical holder of the card has
the right to use the software. You may install the software on more
than one machine as long as you observe the limitation of only one user
per license card. Isn't this a whole lot better than the copy
protection schemes that other companies have used?

What's the beef? What has Microsoft done (outside of the SWL which is
almost an industry standard practice) that you can honestly say is unfair?

--