The drifted SCO thread has opened a new arena. "IS there a place for a de facto IP freedom realm"

Bradley Hook bhook at kssb.net
Fri Sep 28 11:10:27 CDT 2007


David Nicol wrote:
> http://cr.yp.to/softwarelaw.html
> 
> which says, once you legally obtain software, you may modify it,
> if you have the time and inclination.

The problem is that Microsoft doesn't sell copies of software, they sell 
licenses. If you carefully read Microsoft's recent EULA, as with many 
others, you should note that the license does not grant you ownership of 
the software. Microsoft has made much more of a shift in this direction 
recently. For example, my employer purchased a large number of licenses 
from Microsoft recently, and we waited for something (anything!) to come 
in the mail. After about a month, we started making calls because we 
hadn't received anything. We were informed that our purchase wouldn't 
result in us receiving anything... our invoice served as proof of 
purchase for the licenses. In my mind, this basically meant we spent 
thousands of dollars on an *invoice*!

Under Microsoft's logic, the shrink-wrapped CD you have still belongs to 
Microsoft. Since you do not own it, most of the rights granted under 
fair use are not available to you. I do not agree with this!

However, this does present us with a couple of loopholes.

First: The whole "invoice=license" concept means that in order to use 
the license, you have to purchase a "media kit". The media kit is *not* 
licensed, and therefore by purchasing it you legitimately own a copy of 
the software - fair use applies.

Second: Certain fair use rights don't require you to own the copy in the 
first place. For example, academic fair use permits copying for academic 
purposes, and this right is often exercised in libraries where the 
person does not own the copy.

~Bradley


More information about the Kclug mailing list