21 Feb
2006
21 Feb
'06
3:47 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
fons adriaensen <fons.adriaensen(a)skynet.be>
writes:
Survey says... BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Wrong. You would buy
Crossover Office and then install a perfectly legal, paid for copy of
Micro$oft Orifice. It runs fine on my system.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:01:10PM +0100, David
Kastrup wrote:
Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no?
Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software
is crippled in its usefulness.
When buying electronic appliances, at one time you could rely on the
schematics being in the inside. That meant you could make full use of
the appliance, adapt it to different problems (using a radio as a
guitar amplifier), repair it and keep it in working order, and you
could take it to service men of your choice to have it adapted or
fixed.
That's basically what workmanship is about: offering the best to the
customer to make use of.
Just 20 years ago, it was customary to provide computer purchasers or
service people with schematics, BIOS listings and similar stuff
(partly on request and for payment). Now it is trade secret this,
closed source that, not for your eyes this.
It is annoying. If I want a Porsche engine in a VW bug, I can buy the
parts and all relevant service manuals and plans, and put a mechanic
to work.
If I want Excel running on GNU/Linux, I can just shoot myself. I am
not paying for such crippled software. If that means that I have to
do with less sophisticated free software, so be it. It is a price to
pay, but at least it keeps me in control and power and responsibility.
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com> writes:
They have paid for a license to use it, and for nothing else. By this logic, locking my doors is immoral
because it diminishes
people's freedom to roam around my house.
Those people have not paid for access to your house. Purchasers of
proprietary software _have_ paid for access to the software.