🚀 go-pugleaf

This letter is primarily a response to Scott Anguish's response to
Irving Wolfe's letter.  I'm not reproducing the letter, since my intent
isn't to dwell on specifics.

Scott points out that the book market is much different than the Software
market, especially for people developing NeXT software.  I agree with Scott,
however, I'm biased; I've spent my last six years working almost round the
clock (I'm testing software as I write this missive) to get my (actually
we've been incorporated for three years, so it's *our*) product out the
door.

However, there are some subtle issues at play here and since no one else
has mentioned them explicitly, I thought I might describe some of my
experience, as an amateur juggler.  A common joke in juggling is that there
are two types of tricks, the easy ones that look hard and the hard ones that
look easy.  This is good and bad.  It makes performing for children fun and
not too difficult, but it is frusterating when the moves that you've spent
so much time on aren't as appreciated as they would be by other jugglers.
Of course it makes juggling for other jugglers a real bitch (in fact, I'm
really not a juggler by my own definition; I can't juggle five balls, which
leaves me a hack/duffer).

When it comes time to price software, it isn't as easy as some people think.
Here's a simple thought experiment.  If there is such a large gap between
what people are doing, and what is optimum, then if you know the true secret
to pricing software, and you're a programmer, you should be golden.  I do
believe there are people like that, but the people in question are the ones
that are second guessed the most (i.e. Bill Gates).

My own belief as to why unauthorized software copying is so rampant is that
it's easy to do.  I believe that if you set a dollar down in a reasonably
public place, it will be stolen quite quickly.  The fact that software can
exist at two places at once (unlike the dollar, or your NeXTstation/cube)
further increases unauthorized software duplication for two primary reasons.
The first is that it can be done surreptitiously; the original purchaser of
the software probably won't even know that it's gone.  The second is that
some people are going to consider it more ethical to copy software without
authorization than it is to steal physical property.

I believe that Irving was trying to point that out.  Irving most definitely
did not state that he copies software without authorization.  His "leveling
the playing field" doesn't hold with me, but I know several people who, if
they find money at the bottom of a telephone, or in a candy machine, will
take money that didn't belong to them.  I don't do this, I don't believe I
have any right to the money, but when I've discussed my peculiar habit with
people I'm usually told that it is alright, because sometimes I lose money in
the same machines and that it evens out.

So now you know; we at ARDI don't illegaly copy software, not even for
testing purposes, and I'm so straight (or you could say bent) that I don't
take money I find in coin returns; I don't think software is as overpriced
as many others think, and I encourage people to prove me wrong by developing
quality software and selling it for less.  But I must admit, what
pushed me into writing this screed was Scott's line:

     "This all leads towards that screwed up FSF/Stallman thinking
      that all software should belong to all mankind."

I doubt that Richard Stallman reads this newsgroup, and even if he does,
he probably has better things to do than to reply, so I'll take the liberty
to point out that the FSF is producing incredibly high quality work that
is worthwhile not only to use, but to learn from.  I believe the "Free" in
"Free Software Foundation" doesn't mean without monetary cost, but without
chains that prevent others from building on it.  Some languages have two
distinct words for the types of "free" that I'm refering to.  I've had
a chance to talk to Stallman about what I'm doing and he knows that we're
out to make money and he doesn't shun me, or call my thinking "screwed up".
I think he and the FSF is doing the programming community a big favor for
providing both the tools and the good examples that they do.  I personally
plan to help out in some capacity sometime; if some find that offensive,
they can boycott the FSF's work, but I hope everyone takes a good look at
the FSF before making up one's mind.

I hope sometime Richard, Scott, Irving and I (and anyone who's bothered to
read this far) can get together and talk in person.  I suspect with the evil
veil of ascii removed, we would enjoy each others company.  Let's all do it
over at Andrew Stone's house.  Just kidding Andrew and Relinda.

	--Cliff[ord T. Matthews]	iclone!ctm@unmvax.cs.unm.edu
	Abacus R&D, Inc.		ctm@ardi.com