On Mon, 2004-01-12 at 12:35, Andy Green wrote: > Even so, someone must get their wallet out to go after these people before it > would cause a problem. Its hard to understand why someone would spend that > money and time to protect from redistribution something that is given freely > (and is out of date in the case of Acrobat). So you're correct but surely > this isn't the problem. (Seem to be saying this a lot recently). The reason they'll get their wallet out is that when you download it (as the licensed user) you agree to a number of terms that restrict your usage (like barring reverse engineering and "improper use"). The third party who is given the software by a friend has not agreed to this terms of use (and he/she could argue that they were using the software under a presumed license from their friend) and thus was not bound by the terms of the agreement between the vendor and the original user. Now, this is an area in which FOSS has muddied the waters somewhat - in the old days if a friend gave you copied software you could pretty much assume that he/she wasn't doing so within the bounds of licensed usage of that software. Now we have a situation where some software is copyrighted and licensed under restricted terms and other software is copyrighted and licensed under copyleft type terms and the only way to tell is to read a license properly. All of this makes large, slow moving corporations nervous, they don't like an environment where people routinely make and distribute copies of copyright material (because even GPL relies on copyright!), they assume that people who do so will pirate software and music and films without regard. Conversely it is my experience that FOSS people are unusually careful about licenses - a lot of the the reason people use Free Software for is to work in the way they want to and to do so legally! -- GJT gteale@xxxxxxxxxxx She is descended from a long line that her mother listened to. -- Gypsy Rose Lee
