🚀 go-pugleaf

On 4 Oct 1998 21:04:45 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:

>In <361c10d8.2224826@news.supernews.com> spblunt@ozemail.com.au (Steven Blunt) writes:
>
>>On 02 Oct 1998 16:30:40 +0200, in gnu.misc.discuss David Kastrup
>><dak@mailhost.neuroinformatik.ruhr-uni-bochum.de> wrote:
>
>>>Which means exactly that it is not the software you are selling, but
>>>merely access to it, as the ownership of the software stays with the
>>>original author. 
>
>>That depends on what you call selling.  The ownership of most commercial
>>software stays with the original author.  The difference between selling
>>GPL software and distributing software (in the case of shareware fe) is
>>that you can charge whatever you like for GPL software as long as someone
>>is willing to pay.  Saying that you are only allowed to dstribute in tends
>>to imply that you can only charge a reasonable amout for media and
>>handling.
>
>Totally unclear. That is the model that some software publishers would
>like the law to adopt because it is to their advantage. owver, all of
>the details of the transaction are those of the usual sale of any other
>good like an apple. or a book. The item you bought is yours to do with
>as you please, including resell. Shrinkwraped contracts are attempts to
>impose a contract which the buyer has no knowledge of and no aboilty to
>influence and thus are not contracts. They should be no mov\re valid
>than my statement that because you published a posting yesterday
>commenting on one of mine you owe me (under theUnruh shrinkwrap contract
>of newsnet postings) $1000.
>

under the miscro'neill shrinkwrap contract of newsnet postings, you
owe me $2000 for reading this posting.  

the good news is I'm releasing an upgrade to this posting next month,
and if you pay me in advance, it's only $500.