"The business is legal because Microsoft allows a software licence to be transferred, but it is vulnerable to any change in the software giant's terms and conditions, as Unwin admits."

Simple answer to that ... CHANGE THE LAW.

If I buy a hacksaw, the manufacture CANNOT by law stop me reselling it when I no longer require it.

Similarly, if I pay for a piece of software I should get an automatic legal right to SELL that software to somebody else -- subject to the sole restriction that I must not continue using it myself.

There is absolutely no justification for allowing manufacturers to make up their own rules on the matter. It needs to be an absolute legal entitlement.

You want laws that make sense..... that'll never catch on.... we're British you know ;-)

When you 'buy' software, you buy a licence to use the software, not the software itself. Or something.

Frankly, I'm surprised that Micro$oft still allows its licences to be transferred. Many EULAs won't allow this. Some companies charge for transferring the licence.

I'm with the hacksaw guy above. We should be allowed to sell on old software just like an old hacksaw. Same goes for DRMed downloaded songs too. This is why 'buying' from iTunes et al isn't really buying but 'renting' instead.

As usual, simple analogies turn out to be simplistic. There is a glaring difference between a hacksaw and a piece of software: namely, you cannot readily duplicate a hacksaw, giving you two identical hacksaws. But you can do this with software. I am not defending the abusive practices of many software vendors. But, having once worked for one, I have a basic understanding of the economics involved.

"When you 'buy' software, you buy a licence to use the software, not the software itself. Or something."

So, change the law to say that all LICENCES must be RESELLABLE too. No exceptions on the whim of the original seller allowed either.

It should makes absolutely no difference whether the seller claims to be selling a "licence" or a "product", the rule should still be that once you've bought it you have full rights to either USE or to RESELL that licence, provided only that you cease to use it once you no longer own the licence.

Although I completely agree with the idea of being able to re-sell licences, there would still be licenses that could not be sold. These are licenses that are obtained through some other process other than buying the software. Examples of these are OEM Software (has to stay with the original equipment) and

MSDN or Technet licenced products. As these licenses are aquired at subsidized rates.

Also I would suggest that software houses would be more likely to welcome a law if it took the into account whether the version was current or not. So for example you wouldn't be able to sell the licence of a product that is the current version, but as soon as that product is replace with a new version it's licence would become sellable. This would help to protect the price of current software versions.

A large number of companies own old licenses which on the face of it they do not use anymore, so they might betempted to sell - but in actual fact these are the base licenses that have made them eligble for the succession of upgrades they have subsequentlypurchased. Without these underlying "old" licenses these companies are essentially runningsoftware in violation of the license terms

OK then, swap the hacksaw in the analogy to an audio casette, cd, or even a dvd. I don't remember anyone banning the onward sale of those - ebay would take a massive hit if that were the case. These are equally easy (if not easier) to copy. Books would fall into this category too (though a bit more difficult and more hassle to copy!)

Effectively, if they changed it so you can't sell it on, the product (or licence) you purchase has an immediate tangible value of zero. Doesn't seem right to me.

This is where I don't really mind the whole software "phone home" thing. If it helps to reassure software houses that their software is only being used once then surely it will help bring down the cost of the software - I remember an argument that software piracy was inflating the cost. (in case anyone's missed it, I'm being deliberately cynical in that last point...)

To put some perspective into this discussion, in the USA software 'sales' are controlled by our national Copyright laws. See: http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

Software sales could theoretically take place in the US without a 'license agreement' (EULA). However the common practice, supported by the US Universal Commercial Code (UCC) is that software companies create agreements (software licenses) that limit the rights of customers to a sub-set of the rights granted under our Copyright laws. Thus, a software license agreement can be viewed as a restriction of rights rather than a grant of rights. Customers agree to those rights in various ways during the purchase/installation process.

It would be quite possible to also sell a hacksaw under a license agreement if both parties - seller and purchaser - were amenable to such a business practice. After all, we already sell the right to use a car for a period of time under a license agreement.

But of course, no customers would agree to buy a hacksaw under a license agreement. And the obvious reason is that the cost of the hacksaw is pocket change.

However, a car often needs to be financed. It has a greater value. And that value drives the opportunity to 'sell' the use of the car under a license (a lease). The same is true about software. The intellectual property that gives the software its value is worth far more than anyone would be willing to pay for the use of the software, so the seller and the buyer agree to sell/purchase a limited right to use a copy of the software.

Microsoft has historically had less (or no) restriction on transferability of licenses, however their current Office agreements under Vista carry the following restriction:

The first user of the software may make a one time transfer of the software, and this agreement, directly to a third party. The first user must uninstall the software before transferring it separately from the device. The first user may not retain any copies.

and...

Before any permitted transfer, the other party must agree that this agreement applies to the transfer and use of the software. The transfer must include the proof of license.

If you refuse to pay for "software licenses," and only use free open-source software; or only accept "software licenses" which do NOT restrict your right to transfer the software and license, then no one will be able to dictate to you the terms under which you MUST do business.

Do you really WANT your business to be at the mercy of Steve Ballmer's whims? If so, please, keep on using Microsoft products. Just don't come whining to anyone else when Microsoft decides unilaterally (as you HAVE agreed to allow them to do, if you use Windows Vista or MS Office 2007) to disable your OS or office suite (or both). Oh, you *might* prevail in court - after the damage is done. But that's far from certain - and you will be out of business, in any case, won't you?

Bloody sheep.