Hi Larry ----- I am NOT an intellectual property lawyer, but let me try to answer this correctly, as I understand the law (and based in part on the assistance of #1 son, who IS an IP lawyer).

To do it, we have to "parse" the language a little (something lawyers are good at <g>):

>> "This software is protected by United State Copyright law and by international treaty provisions. << This sentence is absolutely meaningless in terms of both the license and copyright laws. ALL intellectual property is protected by US copyright law and international treaties (those which apply to such property, anyway, though we don't have such treaties with every country in the world). Including it in the license adds nothing to the existing legal protections. Omitting it would not in any way detract from those protections.

>> You are authorized to make back-up copies to protect your investment from loss. << I consider this dangerously inadequate language. More precision would be appropriate (e.g., "Wilson grants you a license to use this program on a single machine and to make a single archival back-up copy of the program in support of your use of the single program on a single machine.") What does "protect your investment from loss" mean? In this context, I'm not sure it has any meaning. How many copies are authorized by this language? One? Two? Ten?
And for what purpose?

>> You are not authorized to make copies for distribution to others. << This part is OK, as far as it goes. It does not, however, go nearly far enough. To be fully protected, the license should also include language which says something like the following: "You may not sub-license, assing or transfer the license or the program except as expressly provided in this agreement. If you transfer the program to another party, that party agrees to accept the terms and conditions of this agreement, and you may not retain any copies of the program, whether in printed, machine readable, modified or merged form. Except as expressly provided in this license, you may not copy, modify or transfer this program." [Frankly, the language applying the license to the transferee is of questionable enforcibility.]

>> This User's Guide is also copywrited. It many not be reproduced by any means without prior written consent from Wilson Software." << This provision is probably not enforcible as written. It would appear to prohibit ANY copying of the book, even for personal use by the owner, unless Wilson consents in writing. This would even prohibit what is normally referred to as "fair use" of the material and, to that extent, is probably not enforcible.

Now, this license does not prohibit transferring (giving/loaning) the software to another person. That being the case, it is my opinion that it would NOT be a violation of the license for the purchaser to give or loan the program to a third person, even for the express purpose of allowing that other person to copy the program. BAD JOB by the lawyer who wrote this license, as Wilson cannot use it as the basis for preventing copyright infringement, or to prevent a purchaser from giving the program to another person, or probably even to prevent a purchaser from selling the program to another, even if the original purchaser retained the program in his computer.

Now, all of that is separate and apart from the copyright laws. So what, you might think, it is still a violation of the copyright laws to make a copy of the program, even if it is not a violation of the license agreement. But, here's where it gets tough for a copyright holder who writes a detailed, but inadequate license agreement, where as a prosecutor I don't want to prosecutor the case, where as a defense attorney I get my client off if he is prosecuted and where the copyright holder may even lose his right to recover damages [always keeping in mind the difference in the burden of proof between a criminal case -- beyond a reasonable doubt, which approaching 100% certainty -- and a civil case, which is a preponderance of the evidence, or 50%+ ----- it is MUCH more difficult to convict someone of a crime than to win against him a civil judgement for damages arising out of the same conduct].

Do you agree that a copyright holder can consent to uncompensated copying or other use by another person? Of course, there can be no question of that. But, what constitutes consent? Well, you could just say it (or write it) -- "I give you permission to copy my work." Or, permission can be implied from the copyright holders conduct -- in this case, by writing a license agreement which specifically prohibits certain conduct and thereby IMPLYING that any other use of the product is OK. Would it be reasonable for a consumer to believe, based on the written documentation accompanying the product, that certain things (those spelled out in writing) are prohibited and that other things (not mentioned in the documentation) are OK?

This would be a powerful argument in favor of reasonable doubt in a criminal case (unless, perhaps, the purchaser was someone with special knowledge of copyright law). A virtual certainty, in my opinion, that a criminal conviction against a person transferring the product (even by sale) would be unobtainable. And while a civil judgement would be more likely than a criminal conviction, I'm not sure even that would be possible.

Furthermore (and on further reflection I think I may have been wrong about this in my earlier post), once the program has been transferred, the language of the license specifically authorizes the making of "copies" to protect the buyer's "investment". Which means that the recipient can use or even copy the program without violating the copyright laws.

Arguably, this would be the case even in the event of a temporary "transfer" or loan of the program by the original purchaser to a third party.

And all of this growing out of loose language in the license. Which is why I said to begin with, if you need a lawyer, get a GOOD one.

Larry, I hope this isn't too obtuse. And keep in mind, I'm not saying that this is "fair" in the context of copyright law; just that it probably IS. And that doesn't depend on what the definition of "is" is! <g> ----- jim o\-S