Re: Software 'licensing' <RANT>

[cheer@i.hate.spam (Christopher D. Heer)]

It was 3 Mar 1997 09:47:55 -0500.  I was reading instead of working.  And 
Dark_Dude <Dark_Dude@darkcastle.ecore.fnet.org> said:

>In Article <5f714r$joc@News.Dal.Ca>,
><at217@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote:

>>> situation... How many people can really afford 2 copies of each program?

>>Just as you cannot legally steal a second computer because you can't
>>afford to buy it, if you cannot afford to buy two copies, you'll have to
>>make due with one. The rules are the same despite the easier duplication
>>of software.

>I understand, but still I find this a rediculous law. Escpecially the giant
>software companies would earn more & more. (Does Bill REALLY need more money?
>:-)

Stealing is always easier if you rationalise that you're taking from some big 
faceless company with lots of dough, yes?  But whilst there are a few software 
companies making tons of cash, many many many are small operations making only 
small profits.

Would you mug Bill Gates?  I mean, after all, he's got so much money as it is; 
surely he wouldn't miss a couple hundred.

In any case, the only difference with software is that the duplication is 
easier and that, conceivably, there's no "material" theft; in other words, if 
you pirate MS Office, you don't actually remove a copy from MS's inventory.

However, if we are not stringent in our protection of intellectual properties, 
people will stop creating.
-- 
          Christopher D. Heer - cheer at us dot oracle dot com
     My opinions are my own and do not reflect those of Oracle Corp.
    SPAMProtect: You'll need to fix my email address before replying.