🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <51145@ut-emx.uucp> awessels@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen Wessels) writes:

   Ah.  You define right and wrong by whatever laws are in effect at a
   given time.

Again, it's not my definition that matters; only the applicable law
makes any difference.  You may disagree with it, or wish it were
otherwise, but you have to abide by it or accept the consequences.

Your license with Software Company XYZ states how the software you
have licensed may be used.  If you use it otherwise, you leave
yourself open to a civil suit.  At trial, you'll of course be free to
make all the arguments you wish about why you didn't feel you had to
abide by your agreement, but I suspect that none of that will hold
much water with the judge.

There was a story not long ago about the Disney corporation suing a
preschool over their use of Disney characters on the walls of the
school.  The Disney characters were not properly licensed (i.e., they
were not bought from a vendor who had licensed the characters), and
Disney is rabid in its desire not to lose control of its copyrights.

Were they right to sue the school?  That's one question.  Did they
have the force of civil law on their side?  That's quite another.

In these situations, however, that question is the only one that
matters.

   I own several pieces of software with major problems that I would
   not have found without using it first.  I was stupid enough to
   purchase the software, I am sorry to say.  I have several pieces of
   software for my department sitting on shelves, useless because of
   incompatibilities.

People also buy cars that break down after 3 months; lemon laws are
only now coming into existence, but then usually only for used cars.
Again, this argument doesn't refute my point: that "borrowing"
software is in violation of most software license agreements.
Companies simply cannot afford to leave themselves open to civil suits
because their employees have no respect for the legal agreements into
which their companies have entered.

This is why Mr. Mora's tool is a good thing.  If your company is not
in violation of the license agreements that cover the software it is
using, no problem.  If it is, then it's best that the company find out
about it itself, rather than waiting for a disgruntled employee to go
tell Aldus that his company is using 10,000 copies of PageMaker but
has only paid for one.

   I suppose you would have considered it right that in years past,
   sawdust was sold as sausage?

Right and wrong have nothing to do with it; it's simply a matter of
adhering to the legal agreements into which you (or your company) have
entered.  If you don't like the terms of the agreement, renegotiate
it, or deal with another vendor.  Our company regularly renegotiates
agreements so that we can have site licenses for our software.  In
fact, we generally won't buy software unless we can have a site
license.

   I am constantly reminding management that software MUST be
   purchased, and I show them the SPA "raid" articles in the computer
   rags.  Where is the complementary action on the part of software
   manufacturers to ensure the quality of software?

No one is getting "raided".  What's happening is that SPA is inquiring
about whether a particular company is in violation of one or more of
its license agreements; presumably they were given information in
these cases that that is the case.  Of course, the company is free to
tell the SPA to take a hike, but if the company isn't sure that it is,
in fact, adhering to the license agreements into which it entered, it
is leaving itself open for legal trouble aplenty.  No company wants
that, and no good employee wants that for his or her company.

   I am getting very tired of software acquisition being a crap shoot
   and having many companies leech off that pool.

As am I.  Lots of vendors make samples available; lots of companies
allow you to return software if you don't like it.  We recently
purchased two copies of the excellent NFS/Share direct from Intercon
(for use on two of our Macs).  Although the information wasn't
initially volunteered, after I asked the sales rep I was told that our
company could return the software within 30 days if we weren't
satisfied.  We've not needed to do that, but it just goes to show you
that not every company is run like Microsoft.

I'm getting very tired, though, of people who justify their laziness
and their contempt for other people's work by making sweeping
generalizations about the what the terrible effects of adhering to
the agreements that a company enters into will be.

You may wish the world of software retailing were different than it
is, and that preschool may wish that the world of copyright law were
different than it is, but for now it isn't.  Until it is, I think
people should stop trying to justify their behavior by blaming their
own legal lapses on others.

At the very least they should own up to their own behavior.  As it
stands, the arguments I've seen in this group boil down to those of
the shoplifter or the person who sneaks into the movies without
paying: "Well, I can't afford to buy it, so it's not like they're
losing a sale?  And what does it matter if I see the movie for free?
If I didn't there'd just be one more empty seat in the theater, since
I'm certainly not going to pay good money to see a film if I don't
even know if it's worth seeing."

--
   Steve Baumgarten             | "New York... when civilization falls apart,
   Davis Polk & Wardwell        |  remember, we were way ahead of you."
   baumgart@esquire.dpw.com     | 
   cmcl2!esquire!baumgart       |                           - David Letterman