On Wed, Dec 15, 1999 at 11:00:59AM -0500, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote: > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't > > > bound himself by contract, so the copier can't sue the owner. But so > > > what? What would he sue FOR? > > > > That's an interesting claim. > > It's not a claim, it's a question.
The claim was the first part of the first sentence: > > > The owner hasn't gotten any "consideration", and therefore he hasn't > > > bound himself by contract The owner gets, if nothing else, publicity. This is something that people pay big money for. With the recognition which comes from the software distribution, the owner also gets testing (bug reports), professional contacts, etc. -- Raul
