Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site houxz.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!wh
From: wh@houxz.UUCP (W.HEINMILLER)
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Re: Modula Corporation's License Statement
Message-ID: <911@houxz.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 13-Aug-84 11:12:48 EDT
Article-I.D.: houxz.911
Posted: Mon Aug 13 11:12:48 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 14-Aug-84 01:44:59 EDT
Organization: Bell Communications Research
Lines: 23

[This is not a bug! This is a feature which helpfully removes opening lines, 
which everyone knows are usually worthless anyway!]

The simplicity of Modula Corporation's license statement is nice, but it is
still not 'simple' enough for me.  My question:	 If the	software really	has no
value, as they claim, why are they so concerned	about people making copies of
it?  The other question:  Who decides if the software is 'defective'?  ("That's
not a bug, that's a feature!")

I don't have any suggestion for solving the first question, but I do have a
suggestion that would satisfy me for the second question.
I would	like the statement to say instead, that	if you decide the software
doesn't	do what	you want it to do, you can return it for a full	refund within
30 days, and if	it ever	fails to do what the supplier claims it	can do,	you can
return it for a	full refund, or	the supplier will supply a corrected version.
(Other than media wear.)

However, as with most 'licenses' or 'warranties' for consumer products,	the
legal effect is	to deny	the customer's rights while ensuring the seller's
rights.

	Wayne Heinmiller	Bell Communications Research
	houxz!wh		Freehold, NJ