Bitesize
Tuesday 7th February, 2006 02:36 Comments: 0
I quite liked this article, it shows just how outdated, incorrect and irrelevant GCSE IT... sorry ICT... is.
The author of the article missed one thing to rant over. The BBC site claims "You should always act to remove a virus and let other people know if their computer is infected, but remember that lending your anti-virus software to someone else is breaking copyright laws" - perhaps they should look up copyright laws, as I think it should depend on the licence agreement (a good example would be Clam AntiVirus: open source software for Windows &Mac &Linux, released under the GPL).
I am not a lawyer, but this is how I understand the situation. Popular free (typically free for non-commercial use) ones do have restrictions. AVG has an assignment restriction in the licence, saying: "This license is provided personally to you and for that reason it does not allow you to make any duplicate (copy) to be sold, borrowed, assigned, leased or transferred in any manner whatsoever to another person." but making the installer available is not the same as making the program you have installed available. Just take a look at how many freeware sites have the installer available to download (e.g. Major Geeks, SoftPile, ZDNet UK, Top Shareware.com).
The BitDefender licence agreement says "You may also store or install a copy of the BitDefender on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the BitDefender on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must purchase and dedicate a separate license for each separate computer terminal on which the BitDefender is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the BitDefender may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers or computer terminals. You should purchase a license pack if you require multiple licenses for use on multiple computers or computer terminals." This presumably means that you're allowed to make the installation file available, but the end user (your friend, from the BBC example question) needs a separate licence. However, the Linux version is fine: "BitDefender Linux Edition is a freeware product, which doesn't require a license to be used." This means it should be possible to lend the Linux version to other Linux users without any trouble at all.
I know we have to keep things simple for kids to understand, but some of the information given is just wrong. I did laugh when the article mentions the BBC's description of a main frame (sic).
The author of the article missed one thing to rant over. The BBC site claims "You should always act to remove a virus and let other people know if their computer is infected, but remember that lending your anti-virus software to someone else is breaking copyright laws" - perhaps they should look up copyright laws, as I think it should depend on the licence agreement (a good example would be Clam AntiVirus: open source software for Windows &Mac &Linux, released under the GPL).
I am not a lawyer, but this is how I understand the situation. Popular free (typically free for non-commercial use) ones do have restrictions. AVG has an assignment restriction in the licence, saying: "This license is provided personally to you and for that reason it does not allow you to make any duplicate (copy) to be sold, borrowed, assigned, leased or transferred in any manner whatsoever to another person." but making the installer available is not the same as making the program you have installed available. Just take a look at how many freeware sites have the installer available to download (e.g. Major Geeks, SoftPile, ZDNet UK, Top Shareware.com).
The BitDefender licence agreement says "You may also store or install a copy of the BitDefender on a storage device, such as a network server, used only to install or run the BitDefender on your other computers over an internal network; however, you must purchase and dedicate a separate license for each separate computer terminal on which the BitDefender is installed or run from the storage device. A license for the BitDefender may not be shared or used concurrently on different computers or computer terminals. You should purchase a license pack if you require multiple licenses for use on multiple computers or computer terminals." This presumably means that you're allowed to make the installation file available, but the end user (your friend, from the BBC example question) needs a separate licence. However, the Linux version is fine: "BitDefender Linux Edition is a freeware product, which doesn't require a license to be used." This means it should be possible to lend the Linux version to other Linux users without any trouble at all.
I know we have to keep things simple for kids to understand, but some of the information given is just wrong. I did laugh when the article mentions the BBC's description of a main frame (sic).