Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!aplcomm!capd.jhuapl.edu!waltrip From: waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu Newsgroups: comp.sys.next Subject: Re: Novel Software Distribution Ideas Message-ID: <1991Feb8.130116.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> Date: 8 Feb 91 18:01:16 GMT References: <1037@kaos.MATH.UCLA.EDU> <1991Feb5.104356.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> <64143@brunix.UUCP> Sender: news@aplcomm.JHUAPL.EDU Distribution: na Organization: CAPVAX, JHU/APL Lines: 46 In article <64143@brunix.UUCP>, rca@cs.brown.edu (Ronald C.F. Antony) writes: > In article <1991Feb5.104356.1@capd.jhuapl.edu> waltrip@capd.jhuapl.edu writes: >> >> So I second your metered approach and would like to see it in the >> context of a license manager built into the NeXT OS. > > If we are at it, I have to say NO to these approaches. I plan to sell > software for the NeXT eventually as well as many others, but not that way. > In general I'm opposed to copy-protection. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yup! me, too. That's why I proposed a license manager...you can copy all you want. It's not copy protection, it's unauthorized use protection. But, then, from the rest of your post, I infer that you are opposed to that as well, preferring to leave it to an honor system and market forces. There is a certain charm to that idea, but I still find that the notion that I probably have to pay a built-in cost-of-piracy cost when I buy software is less than charming. I'd rather contribute to a needy programmers' fund that would distribute free software purchased with contributions. (Perhaps we could conduct an annual Crusade of Piracy;^) Well, maybe not.) > If the program is worth > it's money people will pay any reasonable price. If you belong to the > category of people that ask 40000$ for some libraries that were > developed in just a couple of months (as it happens in this market) > then I'd say copyright laws should be abolished altogether. Such high > prices are an abuse of law that wants to ensure healthy profits but > not robbery. > An applaus to companies like Lighthouse and Pencom that realize that a > reasonable price will do it perfectly. Well, I applaud companies that price their products to sell, but that's a separate issue. One of the most ludicrous realities in this market is that the cheapest software is frequently the most pirated, possibly on the rationale that "it can't be worth much, so why should I bother to pay?" Or, "that's so easy, I could do it myself with a little effort, why should I pay for it?" But rather than argue the point, I would hope that we might see an experiment run. Suppose NeXT were to put in a license manager. We could then see who did better: those companies that chose to use the license manager or those who chose not to. c.f.waltrip Internet: Opinions expressed are my own.