Re: Some licensing questions regarding celestia
Don Armstrong <don@donarmstrong.com> writes:
> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:37:47PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote:
> >>I'm not totally convinced one way or another is right, but case law
> >>and legislation (UCITA, etc.) seems to be going towards leases.
> >
> > *NOT* in the case of licenses that are considered free.
>
> Could you explain to me why free licenses are going to be treated
> differently under the law than licenses that are not free?
You are missing the point. In the other cases, a person has paid
money. It might make sense to say that something is leased when there
is money paid for it. It doesn't make any sense otherwise.
> The only argument I've seen so far revolves around consideration, and
> an easy argument there is the warranty clause and/or ego enhancement
> by useage. [And even if it still means that they must be treated
> differently, I'm still at a loss as to how they should be treated
> differently under law.]
The law does not recognize ego enhancement as consideration.
Reply to: