Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!att!att!bu.edu!rpi!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!wuarchive!uunet!convex!ewright
From: ewright@convex.com (Edward V. Wright)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.mac.misc
Subject: Re: Wanting to snub Emulators
Message-ID: <107918@convex.convex.com>
Date: 30 Oct 90 17:29:46 GMT
References: <1990Oct27.190254.8511@cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Sender: news@convex.com
Organization: Convex Computer Corporation; Richardson, TX
Lines: 66

In article <1990Oct27.190254.8511@cpsc.ucalgary.ca> wieser@cs-sun-fsa.cpsc.ucalgary.ca (Bernhard Wieser) writes:

>"Jealous"?  Not at all.  Infact, such a statement is kind of stupid.
>When I write software, I write it for a specific platform.  Think about it,
>running software on a machine it wasn't designed for is a little like
>piracy.  

No, piracy is using software you haven't paid for, not using software
in a manner the author hadn't intended.


>1)Many software licenses state that the licensee is not allowed to
>transmit or translate the software in any form.  Isn't an emulator
>synonymous with the words 'translate' or 'copy'?

This is stupid legal gobbledy-gook written by lawyers and other idiots:
the sort of nonsense that leads to things like copy-protected (read
unuseable) disks.  Most reasonable people expect software "licenses" 
to be routinely ignored because they impose unreasonable conditions
on the user and purchaser of the software.  Mosy software licences
are not binding contracts between the vendor and the user, anyway,
because they are never agreed to by the user.  (Hint: despite what
software vendors like to claim, opening a shrinkwrap package does not
signify agreement.)  


>2)Let's say I wrote a wonderful cad/cam package for various machines.
>I spent resources to support my software on multiple
>machines, using the strengths of each.  So Joe user, who might have
>both an Amiga and a Mac has no reason to support me and my
>efforts if they have an emulator.

Joe User, who has both a Mac and an Amiga, has no reason to support
the development of a second version of your software even without an
emulator: he can choose to run the program on only one machine.  So
what?  What makes you think Joe User has any obligation to ensure the
success of your future projects?  He does not.  Joe User has a moral
and legal obligation to pay for the copy of the software that he uses.
Period.


>3)When I write software, I do so on a machine which supports the task
> well.  If I don't write it for the Amiga, I may not want it running on the
>Amiga.  

Most reporters write stories that are intended to be read.  They may not
want the stories lining the bottom of bird cages.  Therefore, I have just
proved, using your own logic, that it should be illegal to line the bottom
of bird cages with newspaper. 


>Software supports the machine it was written for.
>Why should I (the developer) support users who don't support me?

You shouldn't.  But if a user has purchased a (nonpirated) copy of
the software, he has already paid to support you.  You have no right
to dictate what machine he can run that software on any more than an
author has the right to dictate what room of the house a customer can
read his books in.


>Ps.  Of the several Amiga users I know, all have Amax, only one bought it,
>and all of them have the 'software' version of Mac ROMs.  Kind of like
>stealing a machine...

This is the first thing you have said that makes sense.