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
==============================================
|