Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!purdue!decwrl!eda!jim
From: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software Development And Piracy (Spurred By FTL replies)
Message-ID: <416@eda.com>
Date: 22 Dec 88 23:38:44 GMT
References: <555@icus.islp.ny.us> <2363@ddsw1.MCS.COM> <1334@leah.Albany.Edu> <6390@killer.DALLAS.TX.US> <287@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> <403@eda.com> <299@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk>
Reply-To: jim@eda.com (Jim Budler)
Organization: EDA Systems,Inc. Santa Clara, CA
Lines: 55

In article <299@s1.sys.uea.ac.uk> jrk@uea-sys.UUCP (Richard Kennaway) writes:
| 
| JB = jim@eda.com (Jim Budler) [That's me]
| 
| 
| JB: This bozo [referring to me] describes
|     how it hurts the creator of the software, and how it may cause them
|     to stop supporting the software, but cant expand his intellectual horizon
|     far enough to understand how this hurts the software and why it is theft. He
|     actually *sees* the damage it does, but since he can still use the software
|     he doesn't consider it's value reduced.
| 
| "Hurts the software"?  And you were doing so well up to then.  I just went
| through this with Chris Whatley above.  No doubt it will turn out that by
| "hurts the software" you meant "hurts the producer of the software" and that
| you "certainly don't think that the software will wear out or become soiled
| in any way!".  But this strand of the thread is too long already.

No. Hurts the software. All software I am aware of is benefited by
bug fixes, updates, and rework. I don't know of a perfect piece of
software.

If the value to the (author/copyright holder/publisher) is reduced
to the point they no longer desire to market/maintain it the
software is damaged/hurt.

Now the value of *a* *particular* *user's* particular copy of the
software is not effected, and if *that* *particular* *user*
perceives no problems with the program, the value of the program
to him is not hurt. But the program *is* harmed.

The terminology difference appears to be that when I say

	"The software is harmed"

I mean
	"The future potential/growth of the software is harmed"

and you take it to mean that

	"The copy of the software is harmed/soiled"

The harm to the software provider, although the legal force, is
less important to me than the fact that the software will cease
to improve, and it isn't perfect already.

g'day
jim




-- 
Jim Budler   address = uucp: ...!{decwrl,uunet}!eda!jim OR domain: jim@eda.com
#define disclaimer	"I do not speak for my employer"
Notice: I record license plate numbers of tailgaters