Comments

• RyanT

  2008-07-15 13:38:45

  I've just made a bit of a rant about something.
  
  http://somethingmild.blogspot.com/2008/07/how-to-make-software-agreeable.html
  
  Was wandering what you thought about it, and if it is right/good enough, maybe you could include it in a future links section.

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-07-15 19:41:51

  Proprietary software can never be owned and you cannot ensure it'll run in the future. It's tenancy and you explained this using a simply analogy.
  
  I've just included a link to this. It's also up for discussion in USENET and in http://digg.com/linux_unix/How_To_Make_Software_Agreeable http://tech.propeller.com/story/2008/07/15/how-to-make-software-agreeable/

• Saul Goode

  2008-07-15 20:20:59

  RyanT,
  
  I haven't read your piece in detail yet (I will do so this evening), but it seems well-written and addresses a growing concern with regard to licensing of copyrighted works.
  
  I tend to disagree with the presumption that the existence of a licensing agreement excludes the concept "sale/purchasing". While the courts have occasionally been inconsistent, for the most part they (U.S. courts, anyway) recognize a one-time payment in exchange for use of the software as being a "sale", regardless of any verbiage included in an EULA or other license. A recent court case supporting this "quacks like duck" interpretation is the one involving Ebay sales of Autodesk software [1]. To summarize the decision, a EULA can not trump the laws of copyright in the case of a "sale" of a copyrighted work.
  
  Another recent case which might be interpreted as supporting your position (assuming my basic understanding of your position is correct) would be the Blizzard World Of Warcraft lawsuit against the "Glider" bot [2]. However, I think the distinguishing characteristic of this case is that -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- WoW is a subscription service (not a one-time fee) and as such is more of an ongoing lease arrangement. At least I hope that this distinction was critical to the otherwise worrisome decision.
  
  I hope that as further litigation is resolved, the courts will continue to interpret the "first sale doctrine" as valid and that if a company wishes to have their EULAs recognized as lease agreements then it must not employ "sales" of their software. Those parts of EULAs which would grant the copyright holder more prerogative than the exclusive rights delineated in copyright law should be considered invalid.
  
  I look forward to perusing your article in depth and apologize if I have misinterpreted your position on the issue. It is certainly an issue which warrants further scrutiny and discussion.
  
  [1]http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080523-court-smacks-autodesk-affirms-right-to-sell-used-software.html
  
  [2]http://www.davis.ca/en/blog/Video-Game-Law/2007/02/26/WoW-LAWSUIT-OVER-BOT-SOFTWARE

• RyanT

  2008-07-15 23:42:51

  Thanks for the feedback.
  
  If anyone wants to discuss further, I'll put my email here:
  
  theamazingjanet@hotmail.co.uk
  
  Not my main account, as this is public, but still. I look forward to the in-depth responses, and yes, Saul it seems you've gotten my position correct.
  
  I might elaborate in future, which will most likely go down the path of the likes of the GPL and propriatary models purely becoming applicable to development, and only being extended in fringe cases, and the standard model of ownership being the common/middle ground. Even if not agreed upon by some, it would certainly be more agreeable than the licensed proprietary model (I hope).

• RyanT

  2008-07-15 23:44:34

  P.S. Thanks very much for the digg and propeller links Roy!

• Roy Schestowitz

  2008-07-16 17:27:51

  There's some more feedback here. Just ignore the troll (it's unmoderated).