🚀 go-pugleaf

Ian Staples <ianst@refer.to.sig.au.invalid> wrote in message
news:8m5u07$pa8$2@bunyip.cc.uq.edu.au...
> In article <7xCg5.284$qd1.113036@dfiatx1-snr1.gtei.net>,
> "Michael Mattias" <michael.mattias@gte.net> wrote:
> >You make a couple of points with which I cannot agree:
[snippage]
>
> 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?

If the business was foolish enough to stake 'all' on a single version of
software without securing a site license or source code license,  then they
are merely reaping their just desserts. This is what happened to all those
computer manufacturers who, in their greed, contracted with Microsoft to pay
a per-processor-shipped license fee for MS-DOS and Windows regardless of the
OS actually shipped with the unit. They should have paid the higher per-unit
fee based on actual copies shipped. That greed came back to bite 'em in the
butt.

Well, tough.  In a free-market economy, that's the way the cookie crumbles.
Right now there's just too damn many whiny-assed gen x-ers out there who
think they are entitled to the benefits of entrepreneurship but not liable
for its risks. (Too damn many of many generation - the boomers - for that
matter.).

And NOTHING excuses stealing, as it is a direct violation of Rule Five.  (V:
Thou Shalt Not Steal).

MCM










  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
>