> Why not just find a way to stop them from installing single > user apps on all of their machines
If you know of a way, please enlighten me. That would require a helluvalot of intelligence in the installer. > instead of making draconian EULA's. How many EULA's do you know of that do not define what the license agreement is in the first place? Why have a EULA at all? I can't ever recall having read a EULA for a commercial software product that didn't say you couldn't just install and run the single copy as many times as you want, that you can't give it out to all your friends, etc. That's the whole purpose of a EULA. > Or, if you can detect it, then just send them a damn > bill for the extra copies. Heh, that's a whole other can of worms, right there. > Why burn the bridge with the revenue > stream if some dolt in the IT department takes it upon himself > to install multiple copies of your software? What bridges are burned? It's a very simple concept with easy solutions. Very few people find it unreasonable. Perhaps there's been some sort of miscommunication? > Most companies > would be willing to pay for the mistake rather than end up in > court for piracy or loose a useful tool. Most companies purchase the appropriate licenses, and if they don't they usually do later when they realize that they're going to have trouble registering a single-user license on their entire network. > I think your example is piracy, not EULA though. Again, the EULA exists almost exclusively to prevent piracy. They are not separate concepts. That's the whole point of a EULA. -- Eric (the Deacon remix) _______________________________________________ To unsubscribe, edit your list preferences, or view the list archives, please visit: http://list.valvesoftware.com/mailman/listinfo/hlds_linux
