🚀 go-pugleaf

Well, I have read all of the threads on this issue, and I can only add one
thing, which doesn't necessarily have to do with just software.

The law is the law. (Let me finish!) It doesn't matter how person X, Y, or
Z interpret the law, all the matters are the two lawyer's opinions, the
judge's opinions, and, in some cases, a jury's opinions. Of all the trials
I have been to, the point is that there has to be intent to break the law.

For instance, shoplifting. If you are shopping in a store, going through the
sock rack, and by some freak of nature, the sock statically clings to the
back of your sweater, you walk out of the store, you could, by the shoplifting
laws (strictly enforced) go to jail for stealing. The point is that you had
no intent of leaving the store without purchasing the item. Had you known the
item was there, you would have either purchased it, or put it back on display.
THAT in itself is the intent part of the law.

It doesn't matter what anyone on this thread thinks about "the law", it only
matters if your a** gets the burden of proof fallen upon itself. I personally
think if you pay tons of money for a software product, and then decide you
want the new version, or don't want the product anymore, or whatever the
case, you can sell it to someone else, similarly to the way the original
manufacturer sold it to you. It seems to me that it is in their best interest
to get as many users in the "front door" with the initial purchase, and then
offer those past customers, as well as the new "license" holders, the 
opportunity to get their latest and greatest for $100, or whatever. Everybody
wins. The $100 covers engineering and printing costs for the company, 
especially when the average product probably has an upgrade every year. In
effect, then, Microsoft has sold two copies instead of one. Over the course
of two-three years, at a $100 a pop, you have more direct money coming in from
the software sales directly to your company, than you would have if everyone
was still purchasing from a software dealer. That seems to me to be a better
marketing scheme, than taking all the little guys to court because they 
didn't buy their software through the dealer or manufacturer networks. Will
it only lead to all of our software having ownership titles, and all that
bullshit? That only lends to the government stepping in and getting their
cut.....


+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|  Brandon Brown                     | Internet: brando@uicsl.csl.uiuc.edu    |
|  Coordinated Science Laboratory    | UUCP:	 uiucuxc!addamax!brando!brown |
|  University of Illinois            | CompuServe: 73040,447                  |
|  Urbana, IL  61801                 | GEnie:    macbrando                    |
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+