In article <e22e9$488e1199$8879@news.teranews.com>, "Edwin" <crab@pple.com> wrote:
> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote in message > news:alangbaker-FAECC5.13290721072008@shawnews.vc.shawcable.net... > > In article <5fdd6$4884e7ca$29385@news.teranews.com>, > > "Crab Apple" <crab@pple.com> wrote: > > > >> "nospamatall" <nospamatall@iol.ie> wrote in message > >> news:tARfk.26403$j7.470760@news.indigo.ie... > >> > Crab Apple wrote: > >> > > >> >> > >> >>>>> It is the law and business and it is all about lawyers and money, > >> >>>>> both > >> >>>>> of which I suspect Apple has vastly more of. > >> >>>> IOW, Apple will get all the justice money can buy. > >> >>>> > >> >>> Which is pretty much standard for copyright and trademark law isn't > >> >>> it? > >> >> > >> >> No. It's standard for a large, wealthy corporation riding roughsod > >> >> over > >> >> the rights of the little guy. > >> > > >> > The right to use their product for whateverthefuck you want, regardless > >> > of > >> > the wishes of the company that made the product? > >> > >> The right to use the software I paid for on my computer, regardless of > >> what > >> logo is on its case. > > > > You have no such right. > > Sure I do. > > > You purchased a *license* to use that software and that license has > > terms. > > Software licenses are enforced for the purpose that the creators get paid > for their work. Anything beyond that is none of their business.
Sorry, but you're simply wrong.
The licensing of intellectual property (of which software is just a particular example) leaves far more leeway than you claim.
But since you claim that software licenses can't do more than ensure creators get paid for their work, you should show us the references that support that claim.
-- Alan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia <http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
