Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mailrus!purdue!mentor.cc.purdue.edu!dls
From: dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu (David L Stevens)
Newsgroups: comp.protocols.tcp-ip
Subject: Re: Please boycott Xircom
Message-ID: <14575@mentor.cc.purdue.edu>
Date: 29 Sep 90 16:45:56 GMT
References: <1990Sep26.042027.23110@news.clarkson.edu> <5DN%9T*@rpi.edu> <14121@netcom.UUCP>
Organization: PUCC UNIX Group
Lines: 19

In article <14121@netcom.UUCP>, jbreeden@netcom.UUCP (John Breeden) writes:
> Ignorance is not a legal defense. When Xircom shipped their first driver, they
> entered into that contract, whether they read it or not.

	Of course it's not a legal defense. Who said it was? I'm talking
about morality and justice, which have little to do with copyright law. A
boycott has nothing to do with the legal system, either.
	I'd agree that they should pay damages for the interim in which they
used the code, if there were any, and nothing I've seen says they're unwilling
to. But if anyone was damaged, it was the people who bought the stuff and
wanted sources, not Mr. Nelson. And since they knew they weren't getting
sources at the time, I don't think they'd have a case (ethically) either.
	I'm not endorsing Xircom or anyone else-- I know nothing about their
products-- but if you buy an inferior product on "principle" because Xircom
refuses to be intimidated after making a mistake, the joke's on you. If the
only point of a boycott is to force them to abide by GNU's ideas about
software, it's GNU that needs boycotting.
-- 
					+-DLS  (dls@mentor.cc.purdue.edu)