This is huge:
It will have a very big effect on those developers who have always denied re-sale. Whether or not they will co-operate is another story though.
DG
This is huge:
It will have a very big effect on those developers who have always denied re-sale. Whether or not they will co-operate is another story though.
DG
Itâs another example of senseless meddling by what was originally supposed to be a trading alliance, nit itâs own political entity.
You do not buy software - you by a license to use it that is often non-transferrable, and you AGREE to these conditions when you install it. You already have the perfect right to refuse this and get a refund.
I sort of agree, but it seems to me that the developer has all the cards ATM. Can you return software because it doesnât work properly? No. Is a developer obliged to fix buggy software? No. These are the two big issues for me, so I am all for developers learning that just because they say something in an EULA, doesnât make it legal.
D
Good for the EU but it will never fly here in North America. We will continue to be subjected to the current school of âyou bought it, you own itâ. But then again - there are numerous vendors out there now that have no issues with license transfer so I do not see any issues with the way things are.
And I only purchase major, well tested, well accepted software anyway. Itâs not like any of my stuff will suddenly be problematic to point of needing to return it. I can always get the latest scoop from the NET on all my apps etc.
VP
Thatâs true. Most of my problems are with sample libraries, and those wouldnât be covered by this ruling anyway.
DG