[<<]Message[>>]    [<<]Author            Subject            Thread    

Number   :  4721
Date     :  2003-06-03
Author   :  Peter & Melodye Bowers
Subject  :  Re: OEM vs Brand New (OT)
Size(KB) :  2


As a former software developer, I have a somewhat different perspective...

If someone produces something by the sweat of his/her brow then he/she can
decide how that thing will be used/distributed. If they sweat under someone
else's paycheck then they have already given that person the right to decide
how it will be used/distributed. If John Smith makes a widget and decides
to sell it for $1000 when it is worth $1, I can tell him he's stupid to
assign a price like that, but my ultimate penalty I can assign to him is to
not purchase his widget, even if it was something I wanted.

If John chooses to rent his widgets and not offer them for sale, then that's
his decision. I can "punish" him for a poor decision by choosing to not
rent it, but I do not have the right to quibble over the terms of the
renting. I certainly have no control over how he spends the rent money.

And I certainly do not have the right to steal it because he charged too
high a price or rented it with restrictions on how the rental could be used.
(I don't think anybody here is condoning piracy -- that was just my $0.02.)

So do I wish M$ would sell for less $$$? ABSOLUTELY!!! Do I wish they
would SELL instead of RENT their software (I see renting as the moral
equivalent of licenses) or that they would lessen the restrictions on it?
ABSOLUTELY!!! But since they developed it, it's their widget and they can
choose how to market it. Our ultimate response against them is limited to
not purchasing their software.

The *only* argument I have seen that can be made with any hope of
consistency is an argument against the ownership/copyrightable nature of
thoughts/ideas/software/writings/etc. This has been made about as well as
it can be made by the various proponents of the GNU license, but the vast
majority of developers, authors, artists, etc. will make a pretty compelling
argument that these things can be owned and copyrighted (we like to eat
too). If you accept that these things can be owned and copyrighted then you
have to treat them as a piece of "hardware" (i.e., a widget) and then you're
back to the point where the person who made the widget has the right to
determine how it can be used and the buyer/renter either complies or chooses
not to buy...

-Peter

PS Kan, you have my vote to be the next CEO of M$.



This message if part of XXCOPY's message Archive.
The archive contains all the messages posted at Yahoo!Groups: XXCOPY.