Yes you are correct they are actually different but for practical
purposes licenses in this type of situation, are let because of
copyright law.
On May 10, 2006, at 17:05, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Unfortunately, we're dealing with "licenses" and not directly with
> copyright. Totally different legal mumbo jumbo which probably isn't
> worth the paper it's written on but, as far as I know, it's never
> really
> been tested in US courts.
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
> RMcFet wrote:
>
>> Copyright is specific. Ownership can be transferred unless otherwise
>> specifically stated . So if your son gave you the original discs and
>> documentation and you are now the sole holder of the registration code
>> you legally own the software and there should be no problem. I think
>> its a good approach to take.
>>
>> For me its an ethical issue. I don't use non-legal copies of software
>> as they are the result of someone's labours. Whether its a big
>> insensitive and opportunistic company or someone struggling to make a
>> go of things the laws are the same. Copyright is a method of
>> protecting
>> someone's intellectual contribution and helping them gain credit
>> remuneration or whatever. Their integrity or lack thereof is of no
>> concern to me in measuring what I think is right. In most cases if I
>> don't like them I don't need to patronize them. Others get my support
>> but I don't flex principles based on irritation.
>> Bob
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|