Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft: You Need Permission to Sell Our Software
IEEEmember writes "Microsoft has objected to the sale of bankrupt KMart's Bluelight.com Internet unit to United Online. Microsoft's objection to the sale is based on the non-transferability of software licenses protected by copyright law according to the Reuters story on Yahoo! News. This action by Microsoft should serve as a warning to any corporation that has a significant investment in Microsoft licenses. Dependency on Microsoft licenses may grant Microsoft the ability to veto your business decisions."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
What if I decide to sell my company? The software I've developed is certainly an integral part of the value of my company. Would GPL require me to publish all of the modified source code if I sell the company?
No. You don't even have to hand it over to the new owners if you don't want them to have it, unless, of course, you are letting them use the binaries.
The source and binaries accompany each other under the GPL, or at least they are both availble. Unless you are selling your company to the general public, you don't have to release your code to the general public.
Her bill that she introduced near the end of this legislative session (the companion bill to Boucher's) would formally extend the doctrine of first sale to cover this sort of situation (i.e. once you've purchased a license, you can transfer your rights to another person or entity without the permission of the copyright owner). Then we wouldn't even be talking about all this.
Tuck
Tuck's Journal.
Such non-transferable license agreements will never stand up in court.
Reselling licensed software is no different than transfering ownership of a legally purchased music CD.
Last time I looked, second-hand record shops have been alive and well for decades.
US Court says buyers can unbundle EULA-covered software.
Also take a look at this very well argued thesis on the same issue. Same paper in HTML format
Kmart asked the court to overrule Microsoft's objection, saying the licenses the software maker referred to were not part of the sale. Kmart said the sale included one server license and 25 desktop licenses it bought from Microsoft.
It sounds like Kmart and Microsoft agree about what Kmart can or cannot do with the licenses and that it was merely a case of KMart not specifying that the licenses being talked about were not part of the sale.
Mmmm.. Donuts
Just a little reality check; there is plenty to argue about here. What almost everyone in this thread seems to have ignored (and what makes the case interesting, despite the tiny dollars apparently involved) is that this is a bankruptcy proceeding. The question is not whether you or I can resell our MS products under the EULA, it's whether a bankruptcy court chooses to ignore the alleged "license" and deem the software an asset of the estate.
It is important to remember that Bankruptcy Courts, unlike ordinary courts, are not required to attempt to enforce the will of the parties to a given contract. Rather, they are supposed to look through the contract and determine whether the terms, as written, create a fraudulent (or otherwise voidable) conveyance. Consider the following: I know I am going bankrupt, but I want to save my Ferrari. I agree to sell it to you for a dollar. You agree not to sell it to anyone else for a year and to sell it back to me in one year for 100 dollars. In return you get the use of the Ferrari. We sign the contract, title passes to you and I declare bankruptcy. A year later I have discharged my debts, I'm free and clear and I enforce my contractual right to buy back my Ferrari for $100. Right?
Wrong. Such a contract would be voided by a Bankruptcy Court and you'd have to give up the car. You'd probably even lose the dollar you paid. The car would become part of estate and would be sold. The money would be used to pay creditors. This is called fraudulent conveyance. It's pretty complicated (and dull) and I can't begin to give all necessary details here but what is interesting about this case is that a court will decide whether the material effect of a purchase of software if to transfer ownership or merely to create a license right, regardless of the language in the EULA.
IAAL, and my guess is the Court will punt on it and come up with other reasons to permit the transfer.
"The true administration of justice is the firmest pillar of good government." - George Washington
You MUST contact Microsoft and establish that the license can be transfered. Period.
No. You are bound ONLY by the terms of the EULA that shows up when the software is installed (or that's included with the box when you buy your computer.)
Read the license, understand its terms, and all will be well. The license is "permission" to make copies of the software--and if the license is voided, you no longer have permission and need to talk to MS all over again. (Or just buy a stock license.)
That's truth. Not FUD.
Let's look at the statement:
" No - this is an attempt to pass on the truth. You are obfuscating the point of the story - Microsoft is FINALLY pointing out that your software licenses are THEIR property, not yours."
Sounds like FUD to me. The SOFTWARE is MS's property, but the LICENSE is whomever paid money for it. If you get a "license" that the person who originally aqquired it is not allowed to transfer, then you don't have permission.
You are guilty of spreading FUD, the same as someone who claims that code compiled with gcc needs to be GPL'd is. MS cannot surprise you with unforseen terms--not unless there's a "MS may modify this" clause in the license.