Don Armstrong <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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.
