Xref: utzoo comp.sys.amiga:13548 comp.sys.misc:1027 comp.sys.ibm.pc:10984 comp.sys.mac:11510 comp.sys.atari.st:7104
Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!rutgers!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccicpg!felix!john
From: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
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: <19820@felix.UUCP>
Date: 28 Jan 88 00:25:06 GMT
References: <8055@g.ms.uky.edu> <174@piring.cwi.nl> <14257@oddjob.UChicago.EDU> <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Sender: daemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: john@felix.UUCP (John Gilbert)
Organization: FileNet Corp., Costa Mesa, CA
Lines: 29

In article <6650@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.UUCP (Mike (My watch has windows) Meyer) writes:
>
>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.
>

That's one way to look at it.  While I agree that software would still get
written even without such laws, I percieve the laws as giving those who
create software a legal means to recover compensation when it is righfully
due them.

All this, I guess is based on a fundamental premise... should someone who
develops a software package (be it an individual or a company), have the
right to charge others for the right to use the package?  If the answer is
yes, then the laws make sense in the context I mentioned above.  If the
answer is no, then I do believe there would be less software available,
because many people could not afford to do this in their spare time, and
many excellent minds are developed through the full-time process of
software development.  This is not the ONLY way we progress, and software
would still exist, I just think it is a good thing that folks can make a
living doing it too.


John Gilbert
--
John Gilbert
!trwrb!felix!john