RE: eloquence outside programs it is embedded in was: NVDA n

Most of that is the fault of Freedom Scientific those greedy people who know
no limits of what they charge.  

-----Original Message-----
From: programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:programmingblind-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Alex Midence
Sent: Monday, November 22, 2010 9:57 AM
To: programmingblind@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Ree: eloquence outside programs it is embedded in was: NVDA n

This business of the right to use code only for specific things is what is
driving me away from windows altogether and into Linux.
Making the consumer pay again and again and again for the same product is
just greedy and I completely disagree with the practice.  No other
commercial model allows for such a thing.  Here's what I mean:

You go off and buy a toaster.  The instructions talk about making toast in
it.  You put ego waffles in it one day.  The toaster-maker company calls you
up to yell at you saying that you only had the right to make toast with
their product and you must cease and desist your making of ego waffles with
their toaster immediatly because you didn't buy the toaster, you bought the
right to use the toaster for making toast.  I'd chunk that toaster so fast
it'd make that company's head spin.  You try that with any other product and
you'd get the same result from consumers.  It simply boggles me that
software can be restricted that way.  I mean, come on!  You can only squeeze
so much juice out of a stone.  I will never write code that limits the user
in such a way.  It is a recipe for obscurity.  The minute the stuff you
licensed it's use for becomes obselete, so does your code never mind that
there have now been developed other uses for your code.  If I was IBM I'd be
looking for ways to sell cheap versions of their code for all uses and cash
in instead of deciding that it can only be used for one thing and leave it
at the discretion of resellers like Freedom Scientific and their sort.  I'd
market it as:  "Our synthesizer is so powerful it can be used for the
following things: "  (Long, exhaustive list follows ...)

I don't agree with a lot of what Stallman says and the extent to which he
carries his philosophy (unlimited redistribution with never a penny to the
writer) but he is right about the fact that a lot of software is far too
restrictive to the end user.  This is a classic case.  The software was paid
for by the end user.  It hasn't been illegally obtained.  For another
program to use that software just keeps it in the market as a viable
product.  Keeping other programs from using it ultimately results in loss of
viability.  What is so hard to understand about this?

Alex M
__________
View the list's information and change your settings at
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind


__________
View the list's information and change your settings at 
http://www.freelists.org/list/programmingblind

Other related posts: