Re: Asimov performs a valuable service; so why fight over it

[pfg@cs.rmit.edu.au (Paul Francis Gilbert)]

GUDATH@EZINFO.VMSMAIL.ETHZ.CH (Henrik 'Ratte' Gudat) writes:

>Yes, that is certainly correct. The free distribution, however, may be
>restricted by the owner, for example by not allowing to bundle the software on
>CD-ROMs or upoloading it. Anyway, I think shareware and freeware software are
>not important to the discussion because we have to deal with hardcore
>piracy of commercial titles in a first step. :-)

>cu,
>henrik

Probably a good idea, considering the amount of rambling in threads we
usually succomb to ;-). [And BTW: I'm atually surprised and pleased that
this thread at least hasn't, in general, falling to Mates-style flaming of
parties that you'd suspect would happen in such a topical, um,... topic).

An interesting point to consider though, is just what is copyright when you
get right down to it. Obviously both commercial titles and shareware are
both copyrighted... yet the restrictions on both differ. If it is the
license agreement for a software which defines whether it can be copied,
what it can be copied on, etc. that makes the deciding factor, then what
precisely does bare-bones copyright provide?

Still a bit of a tangent to the original thread about Asimov, I agree, but
it's certainly an interesting enough topic to pursue.




--
Paul Gilbert           | pfg@yallara.cs.rmit.edu.au (The DreamMaster)
Bach App Sci, Bach Eng | The opinions expressed are my own, all my own, and
Year 5, RMIT Melbourne | as such will contain no references to small furry
Australia	       | creatures from Alpha Centauri.