🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <2716@infmx.UUCP> robert@infmx.UUCP (Robert Coleman) writes:
#In article <3268@brazos.Rice.edu> bro@eunomia.rice.edu (Douglas Monk) writes:
...
#>1) In order not to violate Apple's copyrights, ROMS must be made available
#>for this guy by way of a cartridge.
[or some other similar mechanism for legal reasons... see below]

...
#>2) In fairness to David Small and as an obvious business move, don't make 
#the cartridge steal his thunder.
[by which I mean it is not a good idea to set out in such a way as to 
ENCOURAGE ripping him OR ANY ONE ELSE OFF. At the outset, design to allow the
shareware system to stand separate, and not result in the shareware cartridge
being used with HIS software. If you want to write your software to work on
your cartridge and his, more power to you. If you want his software to work
on your cartridge, you are just pirating cartridge designs, and should not 
expect to get ANY money for your software.]

...
#>3) Comparing David Small to Lotus is laughably self-serving, the kind of 
#>defense that pirates sometimes make: "No one gets hurt, only some big
#>business..."
...

#      I cannot believe I am reading this. The hidden suppositions in this way
#of thinking are truly amazing:
#
#1. DAVID SMALL IS A SMALL BUSINESSMAN AND THEREFORE DESERVES SPECIAL PROTECTION.

Wrong. The real suppositions are: 

A) Businesses deserve (and have) legal protection for their products.
B) The Atari market is small, and tends to attract small businesses at best.
C) It is easier to damage and discourage small businesses than large ones.
D) Equating a small business with a large one as a ethical moralization for
predatory behavior is specious.

Some conclusions that derive from these are:

If a product for the Atari market is designed in such a way as to encourage 
ripping off ANY business, big or small, which contributes to the success of 
that market, it is NOT a good idea and is not in the interests of the market
(and hence the product itself).

The only way that "small" enters the picture is that a small business is less
able to afford to defend itself against predatory behavior. 

I used the Discovery cartridge as an example of a bad idea: you could
(reportedly) pop in Mac ROMs and pirate a copy of Small's work and have a Mac
clone without paying him for his cartridge and software package. 
PLEASE NOTE : I DO NOT OBJECT TO COMPETITION. If the same cartridge were
available with its own Mac emulation software, I wouldn't have any objection,
provided it did not encourage piracy. The easiest way to accomplish that is to
make sure Dave Small's software DID not work with the other cartridge, since
his software goes to some pains to make sure it IS using one of his 
cartridges.

#2. DAVID SMALL IS A GENIUS WHO MAY FAIL IF HE FACES COMPETITION.

Sorry. This assumption does not enter into it. Flooding the small market with
a cheap hardware cartridge work-a-like that can use his software once pirated
doesn't rate being called "competition". ANYONE, genius or not, will fail in
the face of being ripped off enough. Remember, I AM NOT OPPOSED TO FAIR
COMPETITION AS I OUTLINED ABOVE. That is why I take issue with this being a
"hidden assumption".

#3. SHAREWARE IS NOT OK IF IT DUPLICATES SMALL BUSINESSPERSON'S SOFTWARE.

Again, this is not an assumption at all. Whether a product is shareware,
freeware, or commercial, I have no objections to fair and healthy competition.
Just as I object to the commercial Discovery cartridge feature I indicated,
I pointed out the objections to similar "features" of the shareware
cartridge. That does not preclude the product, it just puts parameters on
what I consider to be a viable design.

#	Hmmm. I wonder what shareware/freeware you own that you could have
#paid for, that could have supported a small businessperson? You may very well
#be consistent in this philosophy, but I guarantee most other people aren't.
#	You using Uniterm, for instance? Gulam? 

No, I use Flash and Mark Williams' msh. I certainly don't object to Uniterm: 
I think it is a great program. Likewise with Gulam. I just happen to have
other programs that I find more convenient to use. As should surprise no one,
they are all legal copies. I don't pirate software. As for shareware, at the
recent World of Atari in Dallas, I spent over $100 dollars for shareware
direct from the developers, including some that I already had (but did not
use since I hadn't registered for it yet). Sigh. Sometimes being honest is
inconvenient.

#... Are you against shareware/freeware as a concept? If it duplicates 
#anything a profession group has done, it is going to hurt someone "small" 
#(as opposed to big, not "David" :^) ) somewhere down the line...

As I just indicated, I believe in shareware/freeware as a viable competitor
to commercial concerns. I ONLY take issue with unethical application of the
concept. If I PERSONALLY had a Mac emulator that worked off of a cartridge 
that would not support Dave Small's software, I PERSONALLY would NOT release
it as shareware. I MIGHT release it as a commercial product if I thought the
return would be adequate for my trouble. (Which it might not: Dave would be
very hard to compete fairly against, and I PERSONALLY have not other way to
compete.)

#4. UNSUPPORTED SHAREWARE WILL BE SNAPPED UP IN PREFERENCE TO SUPPORTED 
#PROFESSIONAL SOFTWARE.

OOPS. You seem to have read one of my assumptions backwards. I actually assume
that UNSUPPORTED PROFESSIONAL PIRATED SOFTWARE WILL BE SNAPPED UP IN
PREFERENCE TO AN INFERIOR SHAREWARE PRODUCT. That is the whole point to
not stealing Dave Small's thunder: it is the ONLY way to keep the shareware
aspect viable. Otherwise, it will just be an aid to pirates.

#5. IF DAVID GETS BURNED BY SHAREWARE, HE WILL MOVE ON TO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

The way I would put it would be:
IF DAVID GETS BURNED, HE WILL MOVE ON TO SOMEWHERE ELSE.

Shareware has nothing to do with it. He could be driven out by legitimate
competition from a shareware product such as I outlined, and I would have no 
ethical objection. I DO object to people being ripped off. And we'd all miss
him :-).

#6. THIS OTHER GUY IS NOT WORTHY OF CONSIDERATION. 
#
#	I may misremember this mail, but what I recall is that both these 
#products were developed independently, and found different market niches
#(American vs. Europe). This other guy (I wish I knew his name! I'm not
#intentionally being insulting) got stomped on by Apple, and was put out of
#business. David has not been stomped on by Apple...yet. This other guy may
#very well be in the same league as Dave, but "nipped in the bud". Why does
#this make Dave more worthy of support?

According to press reports, the Aladin system included illegal copies of the
Macintosh ROMs, and Apple shot the product down. The developers have every
right to convert their work into a legal product which Apple has no way to
affect. DAVID SMALL HAD TO DO THIS! Early versions of the Magic Sac project
were altered so that only legal Mac ROMs could be used, and the ROMs must be
physically present (not illegally copied on disk, or whatever). He WAS stomped
on by Apple. THAT is why he NOW has no trouble with Apple: he altered what 
might have been an illegal product into what is demonstrably legal. To me it 
makes more sense for the Aladin group to do likewise and to keep the product
commercial, than to convert the system to just an illegal shareware system 
rather than an illegal product. I actually give them the benefit of the doubt
by assuming that they will take the cartridge-and-ROM route to legality 
anyway, despite a lack of anu such indication : the mail suggested making
Aladin more-or-less as-is shareware - which would certainly be illegal and
upon which Apple would certainly stomp.

From an ethical standpoint, I WOULD support the effort of the Aladin group
to produce a legal competitive product. But don't expect me to buy one unless
it is superior, not merely cheaper: the competition beat them to me! (Scratch
me as a market niche :-)

# ... However, I find this "David Small is a Ghod and we must do anything to 
#keep him happy" philosophy repellent and, in a backwards sort of way, 
#insulting to Dave. I respect him (not worship) and I believe he will do just
#fine, competition or no. You should, too.

I should stress that as a rabid monotheist I certainly do NOT consider David
Small a "Ghod", nor do I "worship" him. I also think he will do fine in the
face of competition, I just differ (or more correctly more strictly define)
what I consider to be "competition" and what I consider to be "predatory
behavior".

#	Incidentally, has anyone asked Dave how he feels about this 
#competition? I bet he's not particularly worried...

From published reports, he WAS not pleased with the Discovery cartridge
"feature", nor with the nature of Aladin's competition (since they used
on-disk copies of the ROMs and he couldn't). Being a firm believer in a
level playing field, I see his point of view.

#Robert

Doug Monk (bro@rice.edu)

Disclaimer: These views are mine, not necessarily my organization's.