[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: M$ IL latest craze



Quoth Stanislav Malyshev a.k.a Frodo on Tue, Jun 01, 1999:
> This "steal" again. OK, I'm stopping to explain this until everybody goes
> out, reads a dictionary and gets a clue what this word means. Until that
> you can call it steal, murder, kidnapping, arson or whatever - same thing.

According to Merriam-Webster, 'Steal' in intransitive sence 1
means:
	to take the property of another wrongfully and especially
	as an habitual or regular practice

Thus, copyright violation is stealing.  Software is an
(intellectual) property of the software company which wrote it,
and 'wrongful', sence 2, is defined as:
	a : having no legal sanction : UNLAWFUL b : ILLEGITIMATE

Copyright violation _is_ illegitimate, because the copyright
holder (author, owner, whatever you want to call it) doesn't let
you take his (or hers) property.

Anyway, formal definition is not the point.  The point is that
you're not paying money for the things you should pay money for,
and you should pay money for software because the owners of this
software let you use it only if you pay them money.  As simple as
that.

Now, I may let you sit on my chair only if you pay me $1000.
It's legal.  Now, if you want to sit on a chair, you have several
choices:

	1. Pay me lots of money.
	2. Sit on the floor.
	3. Sit on another chair.
	4. Sit on my chair without paying me money.

> VV>> throw junk on the streets instead of throwing it to the thrash
> VV>> can.  Does it make throwing junk everywhere ethical?
> 
> Who cares it it ethical or not? Ok, so it's unethical - now what?

Great.  I like it.  It's bad, we know it's bad, but we don't
fucking care.  A society in which ethics is lacking is not a
healthy society.  I expect people not to throw junk on the
streets, not to spit on each other, not to beat old people who
can't defend themselves, and not to kill cats just because they
can.

> Do you
> really expect everybody stopping doing something profitable just because
> it's "unethical"? Get real.

Yes, I do (sounds like marriage).  I don't fucking care if it's
profitable or not.  Stealing is always profitable, but I don't
want to live in a society where my property can be stolen at any
moment.  And if I ever decide to work as a programmer, I want to
get money, and the money is unlikely to be donated to the
company, so I would expect people who use the product to pay the
company money, so I could get some of it and feed my family,
cats, or whomever.

Anyway, I guess that you're not really happy with Microsoft's
price and quality (hey, I'm really smart!).  If this is the
situation, promote other businesses.  Buy from Netscape, buy from
Applixware or StarOffice, or from whatever company that sells
products that you would be happy to use.  If you don't want to
buy from them, fine with me -- use Linux, use Emacs, use Lynx, or
whatever.

At home, I use a commercial OS that our University bought,
because our license explicitly permits us to install it at home.
I use Netscape, and it's legal to me both because it comes with
the said OS, and because I work in a University.  I installed
software on my home machine myself, and this includes ipfilter
(free), a new version of Tcl/Tk (free), Exim mailer daemon
(free), Mutt (free), a newer version of ctwm (free)...  Should I
continue?

As somebody pointed out, don't cry that you have no money.  If
you have enough money to buy a computer big enough to support
Windoze 95, you should have money for Windoze itself.  And, let
me repeat once again, if you're unhappy with Windoze for some
reason, hell, use Linux, it's a Linux-related mailing list, and I
think that about everyone except me uses Linux here!  There is
enough free software in the world.

And for those who don't use UNIX-like OSes: either start using a
free OS, or pay for a commercial one.  Or just don't use your
computer.

> VV>> such possibility exists, and suing them in BAGATS should help.
> VV>> It's written on the license, and I quote from memory: "If you
> VV>> don't agree to the terms and conditions of this license, return
> VV>> this product to where you bought it or to MS immediately".
> 
> This little word "or" will kill you here.

Well, I don't exactly remember the wording.  Maybe there is no
word 'or' there, but, well, I don't have an MS license here
(guess why (hint: the commercial OS I use is not made by MS)), so
I can't check it.  And I don't want to pay a lawyer to explain MS
license to me, because at this time I'm not interested in buying
MS products.

> And we are not US (thanks God
> :), where you can sue everybody for everything. This case would be buried
> for "lack of public interest" even if ever accepted.

This is as bad as software theft.  It shows lack of ethics (this
time, in the attitude of computer shops toward their customers),
it's illegal (you can't force people buy things), and it's
downright wrong.  And it's not about suing people -- the primary
message is 'people should behave according to the law'.  The
message 'bad people should go to jail' is secondary.  Anyway, if
someone does something bad (== against the law) to me, and the
government (and the police, courts, and other authorities) can't
(or don't want to) protect me from bad people or at least get my
money back, something is wrong here, don't you think so?

Vadik.

-- 
To the systems programmer, users and applications serve only to
provide a test load.