Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!gatech!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!MADSON@sri-kl.arpa
From: MADSON@sri-kl.arpa
Newsgroups: net.micro
Subject: Your (preferred) software rights...
Message-ID: <1220@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Fri, 3-Jan-86 14:32:47 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.1220
Posted: Fri Jan  3 14:32:47 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 5-Jan-86 01:43:43 EST
Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA
Lines: 49

The one-sided treatment of the Illinois software law in favor of the "licensor"
(sic, or perhaps sick) should make several points obvious to the concerned
computer user and software purchaser:

1) Software developers and sellers (including programmers, producers, discount
   mail-order vendors, and your local store) need to be made aware of how large
   the "other side" is, and how strongly we feel about restrictions, legisla-
   tion, and misrepresentations regarding the software we buy.  If we can show
   them that such user frustrations translate directly into less income for
   all concerned, and we can offer constructive alternatives, we'll be halfway
   there.

2) Legislators need to know the same--how big and how strong the opposing 
   feelings run.  If you were a lawmaker and all you heard were the complaints
   of developers, your laws would almost certainly reflect that bias (assuming
   all other things being equal, which of course they aren't; vendors, for
   instance, have a $$louder$$ voice than your average software purchaser).

3) While opposing unbalanced laws, we should advocate a few consumer protection
   measures of our own.  If a seller plans to degrade the value of his or her
   software through use of irritating copy protection, the packaging should be
   required to indicate that such protection is used.  If the user is required
   to send additional money in to obtain backups, this should also be obviously
   marked on the packaging.  We have the right to know what we are paying for.

I also think too many of us believe too strongly in the power of the "free
market" in determining which software package predominates.  In the long run,
I agree that obnoxious programs (due to bad protection or just bad code) will
die a just death; however, the time constants involved in hardware and software
don't often provide the freedom to wait for the market forces to catch up.  If
you have a machine that will be outdated in 4 or 5 years and yet you wait the
extra year or two it takes another developer to produce a good Gorp compiler
that is _not_ protected, you will have wasted a major part of your investment.
I whole-heartedly suggest that you avoid all products that don't live up to 
their claims, or that do nasty things that were never mentioned by the seller,
but don't sit around waiting for the marketplace to decide what you will and
won't be able to buy.  If you let the marketers know directly what you do and
don't want in a product, the marketplace may change a lot faster.

					--Carl Madson
					SRI International, Menlo Park, CA
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of course, all the above was generated by a random-text program and does not
reflect the views of anyone except Don Knuth because the randomizing algorithm
is his.

Hofstadter's Law:  Everything takes longer than you think it will, even when
you take Hofstadter's Law into account.
-------