There's no technical or legal reason that the word "purchase" doesn't imply an irrevocable, transferable license (for one person at a time), as well as the requirement that the "seller" makes the licensed good indefinitely available to license holders (for a fee appropriate to cost of doing so).
If they don't like that, don't call it a purchase. Anything less is just eroding the meaning of the word.
I suppose I could have put ‘sales’ in quotes. And it’s not how I think things should be. It’s how they are. Read the terms next time you ‘buy’ a digital product.
There's no technical or legal reason that the word "purchase" doesn't imply an irrevocable, transferable license (for one person at a time), as well as the requirement that the "seller" makes the licensed good indefinitely available to license holders (for a fee appropriate to cost of doing so).
If they don't like that, don't call it a purchase. Anything less is just eroding the meaning of the word.
I agree. I’m just telling you what the terms of service say.
In such case calling them purchase should be illegal or result in mandatory refund.
Maybe refund should be indexed by inflation.
Then remove the "buy" button and replace it with "lease for some time, until we decide otherwise"
You are being downvoted because your sentence is self-contradictory.
One does not “sell” a license agreement, one “enters into it with a third party”. Wether it is digital or not.
> One does not “sell” a license agreement
Factually, yes, one does sell licenses.
> one “enters into it with a third party”.
One also does that. When one offers to do so, in exchange for money, it is also selling the license. You are simply setting up a false dichotomy.
I suppose I could have put ‘sales’ in quotes. And it’s not how I think things should be. It’s how they are. Read the terms next time you ‘buy’ a digital product.