🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4ZXac6_00WY7M=p5Y7@andrew.cmu.edu> jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes:
>While you claim that he did not reverse engineer the software (which
>is contrary to what i have heard and read - why not ask rms himself? i
>think i will), other than a legal technicality, i can't see what the
>difference is.

  The basic difference is that in one case, the *functionality* of the
software is being duplicated.  In the other (what I've usually heard
referred to as "reverse engineering"), the *implementation* is being
duplicated.  If you know a lawyer in copyright/patent law, you might
check with them (I probably will over break).

>Actually, that's not quite true.  Some people pirate BIOS so that they
>can get them for their PCs without having to pay for them.

  Note that pirating a BIOS requires copying ROMs.  This requires
equipment that the average user doesn't have.

>That well may be - if so, then you should take it up with the
>management of the corporations

  Yes, and various companies have done so (Lotus in particular has
been starting multi-million dollar suits for copyright infringement).

>However, if it is true, then i find it hard to believe
>that software companies too would be immune

  It's entirely possible that some software companies do pirate
others' software.  There are others which don't.  There are
non-software companies which don't, too.

>thus i can find no
>reason to sympathise with them when their software gets pirated in turn.

  Two wrongs don't make a right.

>Why is it that you think it [MSWord] would have taken 20 years?

  If I could work fulltime on it, I could probably do it within 3-5
years.  Maybe.  A word processor is a complicated piece of machinery,
when it incorporates page layout, table management, etc.  I haven't
written a WYSIWYG word processor yet, either, so would probably make a
false start or two.
  At a rough guess, designing the user interface would take 6 months,
writing the manual 6 months, polishing loose ends 3-6 months (i.e.
user testing), and thorough debugging 6 months.  This leaves perhaps a
year to write the program, on a 3-year schedule.
  Maybe 20 years was a bit of an exaggeration, but if I weren't
getting paid for it, I wouldn't be spending 40-60 hours a week on it,
either.

>Even if you got 3 people to work on it, it would take a long time - in
>fact, it could well take longer

  It's unlikely it would take longer (in real time) on a project which
is reasonably large (like this).  3 people isn't so many that
management becomes a problem.

>>   Sure, I write free software from time to time.  But I don't usually
>> spend the time to write user manuals, add in features which aren't
>> likely to be used by me or my friends, etc.
>
>Why not?

  There's a very simple reason: I write these programs to save me time
(this is one major reason I use computers).  If I try to think of
everything anyone might want in them, and implement that, they're not
saving me time any more.  If I need some graphics for a paper which is
due in a week, spending more than a week writing a graphics program is
counterproductive.

>Do you normally write sloppy letters to your friends or relatives?

  No, and I don't write sloppy code either.  On the other hand, when
writing to a friend, I don't mention everything which has happened in
my life, either--just the things which probably interest them
(otherwise my letters would be far too long and never get done!).

>Just because you are not paid doesn't mean you *shouldn't* do the
>best job you are capable of doing.

  I agree, and I do.  When I write a utility, it's programmed as well
as I can do it.  That doesn't necessarily mean that it has a polished
user interface, or that it has lots of extra features.  It just means
that what it does, it does well.

		Anton
   
+---------------------------+------------------+-------------+
| Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | UW--Madison |
+---------------------------+------------------+-------------+