On 1/12/00, Lynn Winebarger <owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 Jan 2000, Carol Shepherd <shepherd[_at_]arborlaw.com> wrote:
> >
> > "Any other industry" doesn't get to market goods to consumers that go
> > dead in the middle of operation... software is different legally in
> > many ways. For better or worse, the differences are accepted as a
> > commercially reasonable industry standard. One of the ways in which
> > software is different is that it is licensed rather than sold.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> That should read "it is purported to be licensed rather than sold".
> Whether it is or not will be a matter for the USC to decide, as it
> involves Constitutional issues.
I'm having a hard time identifying the constitutional issue here. Why do you think that the characterization of a transaction as license vs. sale is anything other than a state law issue.
John Noble
<jnoble[_at_]dgsys.com>
Received on Thu Jan 13 2000 - 15:20:13 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Mon Mar 26 2007 - 00:35:37 GMT