Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13421 comp.sys.misc:1009 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10848 comp.sys.mac:11308 comp.sys.atari.st:7063
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!cmcl2!nrl-cmf!ames!pasteur!agate!eris!mwm
From: mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga,comp.sys.misc,comp.sys.ibm.pc,comp.sys.mac,comp.sys.atari.st
Subject: Re: Software (and other kinds of) copying
Keywords: technology changes things
Message-ID: <6719@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Date: 26 Jan 88 08:09:52 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> 174@piring.cwi.nl>> <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> <39921@sun.uucp>
Sender: usenet@agate.BERKELEY.EDU
Reply-To: mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer)
Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica
Lines: 109

In article <39921@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
<In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
<> In article <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> mcb@oddjob.uchicago.edu.UUCP (He Who Passes Through Locked Doors) writes:
<> Matt, I don't know what drugs you've been doing, but you should stop.
<
<A kind, generous remark...guaranteed to make the other person more
<certain to carefully consider your argument. :}

Sorry 'bout that. I should have added the smiley - or better yet, not
said it. But I'd just spent a long, nasty day working on the latest
version of some free software.

<> It's causing you to overlook some important facts. Let's look at the
<> tools I use, from the ground up:
<	[ List of programming tools that cost Mr. Meyers nothing.
<	Apparently mostly GNE-related software.  Fine, the stuff
<	works. ] 

Allow me to correct two spelling errors. 1) My name is Meyer. I'm not
plural. 2) It's GNU, not GNE. And one misconception - most of it
wasn't from the Free Software Foundation.

<> Further, some of the best programmers I know (people who write working
<> device drivers without having hardware to test them on) don't write
<> software for a living. They maintain software for some group that
<> needs it to get their work done - and are allowed to give away their
<> changes and improvements to that software, and any tools they write to
<> make their job easier.
<
<How do they pay their rent?  Buy groceries?

Please reread the above paragraph. The answer is there - "they
maintain software for some group that needs it to get their work
done." Neither they, nor the group paying them needs to sell the
software to make a living. So they give away much of it.

As a concrete example, I used to work for a petrochemicals consulting
firm. There attitude was that any software I wrote in order to do my
job could be given away, so long as it didn't contain company
proprietary information. That information was expertise in doing 2 and
3d gas flow simulations - which very few people aside from our
competition would be interested in. No problem. I gave away the
accounting package I did for them, as well as systems utilities and
other stuff. I even gave kernel bug patchs back to the vendor we
bought the OS from. The company paid me for doing these things, and
made a living that in part involved using these things as tools.

Other examples abound. Most work done for the federal government must
be placed in the public domain. Most work done at state universities
can be gotten for materials & labor. A fair selection of companies
behave as the one I described above.

<It's very nice that there are some usable programming tools available that
<you can get for little or nothing.  TANSTAAFL.  (There Ain't No Such Thing
<As A Free Lunch...)  Somebody had to pay for this, just not you.  (If I
<remember correctly, that somebody is a University that supports this
<development.  Farther down the line, particularly where state schools
<are engaged in supporting such work, the taxpayers pay for it.

True. And for the companies that give away software, the customer
winds up paying for it. The point is that in many cases, it doesn't
matter. You said it yourself:

<No...it gets written because there is a need (real or perceived) for
<the software, and because if someone is willing to pay for this soft-
<ware, someone else is willing to spend the time and energy to write
<and distribute it.  With the expectation that their effort will be
<repayed in the future (along with their mortgage, rent, groceries,
<medical bills, schooling, ...)

In many cases, that repayment *does not* involve selling the software
involved. It involves using it. I claim that that's the majority of
the cases. You just have to know where to go to get the software
(legally, of course).

<> No, copyright law - or lack thereof - isn't why software gets written.
<> It gets written because people need it, or because they want it. All
<> the copyright laws really do is restrict the distribution of the
<> software once it gets written.
<
<Copyright law exists (originally for printed material, later expanded
<to include software) *NOT* to restrict distribution, but to protect
<the producer's livelihood.

I didn't say why it exists - I said what it actually does. You're
right as to why it came into existence, but that has nothing to do
with what it actually does (intent vs. reality).

<In a scholastic setting, this sort of
<thing is called plagiarism and, so I recollect, is frowned on.

You've confused two issues. The copyright laws do more than prevent
plagiarism. Plagiarism is the act of passing off something else as the
product of your own work. That is frowned upon, and people doing that
(even if they don't make an financial gain thereby) are <list all
adjectives that have come up in this conversation so far>.

Copyright laws prevent you from giving something to someone else even
though you say who actually produced it. In a scholastic setting, this
is called "quoting", or a "reference," and is (to a limited extend)
encouraged.


	<mike
--
Come all you rolling minstrels,				Mike Meyer
And together we will try,				mwm@berkeley.edu
To rouse the spirit of the air,				ucbvax!mwm
And move the rolling sky.				mwm@ucbjade.BITNET