🚀 go-pugleaf

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.