🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <7xCg5.284$qd1.113036@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>, 
"Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
>You make a couple of points with which I cannot agree:
>
>> With books and similar documents, it has always seemed to
>> me that copyright holders should have some reponsibility
>> to make the material available while it's "out of print",
>> in return for society's protection of the ownership rights.
>
>I do not agree that any author has any obligation - moral or secular - to
>make his creative works available in perpetuity. First, seems to me an
>author should have full control of materials bearing his name, and if
>improvements or corrections appear in the 'second edition'  it's more than
>reasonable that the author be allowed to associate himself with the
>new-and-improved version, or if the 'first edition' was that bad and there
>is no second edition, the author need not be saddled with that literary
>millstone forever.

You make a valid point, and I confess I was not really thinking
of "literary" publications but rather the technical ones.  (Though
your point could of course apply to any -- I doubt that Kempthorne,
for example, was pleased that his tome on quantitative genetics
ended up requiring about 25 typed pages of errata!  Then again, if 
he was so careless to begin with, perhaps he really didn't care. :)

However, please note that I wasn't calling for all previous editions
to remain available in perpetuity; simply that the "work" remain
conveniently available in one form or another.  Naturally, a new
edition would supersede the previous in normal circumstances.

>and for software:
>
>> I have a proviso in all this though -- if a new version of
>> software "breaks" older versions in the sense that you can
>> no longer access documents created with the older versions,
>> then I think the software publishers have an obligation to
>> either continue sales and support of the old model or provide
>> some *satisfactory* means to convert documents from the old
>> to the new format.  To their credit, I think they mostly do
>> this with modern version changes.
>
>Similarly, I don't feel that as a software author I need to make everything
>'backwards compatible.' If you don't want the new features, or I do not
>offer a 'conversion' tool, then don't buy my upgrade. I'll pay for my error
>in the pocketbook with reduced sales.
>
>If I offer an upgrade and fail to tell you in advance that documents are not
>compatible and there's no conversion option, then I may be foolish pond
>scum, but I'm not wrong. You can always revert to your backup (oh, you
>didn't? Too bad).

I'm not sure whether you're making an isolated point here or 
whether you're also implying disagreement with my alternative
point that, in the absence of backwards compatibility, there
is some obligation to continue supply and support of the older
version?

You see, it's not just you who'll pay.  If a business is committed
to your earlier product and your new version breaks it, then how is
the business expected to expand its internal group of users should
the need arise?  Perhaps by "pirating" the old version?  Is it
really "pirating" if you've effectively forced them into that
situation?  Does this come into the realm of inciting someone 
to commit a crime? ;-)

Cheers,  Ian S.



ianstDELETE@THISdpi.qld.gov.au