As someone with a overdeveloped idea of what "fair" is, when I think about the new licensing scheme, I can't help but think that it IS fair.
Most software licences are for one machine, period. And some even do web registration, and limit the number or re-installs to 1 or 2. Which means that when you do what is natural, like install it at home, work, and laptop, you are breaking the law.
By contrast the MJ licence is for 5 installs a year. Could be one machine 5 times a year, or 5 machines a year. You choose. Seems fair.
Put it this way, if installed on 5 machines, it works out to only $5/machine. Cheap. If you can keep your OS up for 2 years, and install it on another 5 the following year it's only $2.50/machine. Ridiculous.
On the other hand, what about when MJ goes through another round of beta testing, when the faithful will be doing full uninstalls, and cleaning the registry, to try excise demons, but don't want to bother with, be insulted by, etc, the nasty "Unlicensed Copy" messages? Certainly we will be burning through many, many licences? There will have to be time-limited beta licences, I guess.
In response to Nila:
In reality, if I was a clever "Power User", who was trying out OS's & etc, then I'd wait to register my MJ until after the 30 period expired, AND I needed the licensed capabilities. By then I'd be sure that the OS was going to stick.
It seems that in this current, um, copyright climate, that all is fair in love and EULA's, but this one seems fairer than most.
Plus I feel about JRiver & Co, because even thought they were much resistant to it, they listened to the users and rebuilt their beloved Buy Button.
-Nef