🚀 go-pugleaf

On 6 Oct 1998 22:42:33 GMT, unruh@physics.ubc.ca (Bill Unruh) wrote:

>In <361a5c9a.611857314@news.onramp.net> msissom@dnaent.com writes:
>
>>Not in principle. I made it. I own it. I will do with it as I
>>wish. If you want to use it, you will agree to my terms. Other
>>wise you will do without it. The principle really is pretty simple.
>>There are no regulations required. You can certainly go and make
>>your own version of it, but in no case do you have the 'right' to
>>take something from me.
>
>
>Fine. And I will ask you to enter into an agreement with me as well
>wehre I stipulate terms under which I will be willing to pay you money
>to use your software. Noone has any objection to this model. But it is
>not eh model that software companies selling to the public use. They try
>to impose a license on the user after the transaction is completed. They
>try to use trade secret law and copyright law to cover the same item.
>They claim that what they sell you does not necessarily do anything they said in
>their advertising it does do. And then they try to force the taxpayers
>through the imposition of criminal law to enforce these contracts for
>them. 

Sorry, apparently I missed some component of the thread.

'I' means me, not the state, not any other corporate entity.

>
>IF they desire to sell through public channels, and if they want the
>state to use its power to enforce their claimed monopoly then the state
>has the right to impose conditions on the company in return for these
>rights. To me, the revelation of source is a reasonable requirement in
>this exchange. That does not stop you from entering other agreements
>with me for the sale of your software to me. It just stops you from
>trying to use the legal system and the state to enforce inequitable (to
>me) conditions on my contract with you. 

While I agree in principle, anyone would be a fool to not use what
ever tools are available to improve their position. I don't fault
them for that, I fault them for shoddy products.

>
>Your position seems to be that you want the state to do lots for you,

Definitely not _my_ position, but arguably the position of others.

>and to enforce your monopoly for you, while accepting no obligation in
>exchange on yourself. It;s of course nice if you can get it, but I do
>not see how you can see this as anything but selfishness and greed on
>your part. If you don;t ask society for anything, then society has no
>right to demand conditions on you. But as soon as you want society to
>protect you, though the courts and civil and criminal law, then you also
>have responsibilities.

Oh, if only more people would practice this doctrine of personal
responsibility in their everyday lives.

>What those responsibilities are is of course open to discussion. I am
>advocating that they should include revelation of source code.

Why not something more amenable, as in obligated refunds for failed
products or obligated repairs in a timely fashion. The auto industry
was once in a similar position until enough consumers got pissed. Now
there are certain things like the "Lemon Law".