nanashiwanderer wrote:the funny thing is what will the courts uphold. The courts in the ADOBE SOFTMAN declared that software is a product and a person has the right to resell any software. (which is infact) transfer regardless of a liscence. From this a person owning academic software for example can sell his software to any where. I don't think the courts would uphold you can't loan software out, if there on the line of thinking they were then.
It comes down to the license. If the license is explicit, and you agree to the terms, that's that.
If the license is not explicit, or poorly written and open to interpretation, then you can run into situations where the courts will clarify the license terms, which may benefit the customer but may also benefit the author.
Again, when you "buy software" you aren't "buying software". You're buying a license to use a copy of the software. That license is property, just like the actual software is property. Note that the copy of the software you have to use is NOT property...it isn't yours. The author is just allowing you to use it under certain terms. You may have other rights, like fair use, parody, satire, archiving, etc. that are granted to you by law, but otherwise whatever the license says it what it says.
I'm really having a hard time believing that there are people posting here and saying it is OK to ignore the terms of a license. If that's true, then everyone who thinks it grants me a lifetime, royalty-free, cost-free license to use all of their music compositions and recordings however I like, whenever and wherever I like. Is that really your intent when you record a song you wrote? Maybe it is...there are definitely people around who think that everything should be free for everyone no matter what, and that's cool, but an agreement is an agreement.
If I booked time in your studio, and agreed to your terms, but then decided later that I didn't think your rate was reasonable because it didn't really fit with my creative freedom and actually wanted to double the amount of studio time at no extra charge, would you let me do it? I don't think so. So why then, is it reasonable to expect a software author to give you two licenses for the price of one just because you think that's how it should be?