Thought this story might interest a few people:
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...todesk_ruling/
Autodesk, in an attempt to stop second-hand sales of legitimate software, claims that it does not sell software. Instead it only licenses software.
So my question is, if they don't sell their own software, who does? And does this explain their development debacles in recent years? Presumably if they don't sell software they don't develop it either...
I understand thats not really the point. The decision essentially renders EULAs obsolete, and brings the issue of software assets into question. But I think Autodesk really screwed up by making such a distinction.
http://www.channelregister.co.uk/200...todesk_ruling/
Autodesk, in an attempt to stop second-hand sales of legitimate software, claims that it does not sell software. Instead it only licenses software.
So my question is, if they don't sell their own software, who does? And does this explain their development debacles in recent years? Presumably if they don't sell software they don't develop it either...
I understand thats not really the point. The decision essentially renders EULAs obsolete, and brings the issue of software assets into question. But I think Autodesk really screwed up by making such a distinction.
Comment