[alt.religion.computers] GNUclear Warfare

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/14/89)

Ok, let's admit for a moment that FSF's point of view is radical and
maybe a teensy-bit intended to attract attention to the issues of
software copyright. I strongly suspect that if "the other side" was
interested in some compromise (and, I suspect, there's more chance of
that than the cynic might think, yes, it's making a difference) there
might be some room in between.

Now, consider for a moment "the other side". Like the SPA (Software
Publisher's Association.) What is *their* raison d'etre? cause celebre'?

Er, how about "goal"?

Their extreme opposite position, and that of Apple and others, is that
software copyrights can extend to things like look and feel. In other
words, if I decide to use |vertical bars| to indicate boldface then
perhaps I can copyright it and sue your ass if I catch you using them
w/o my permission.

Before you laugh consider Apple's claim on their copyright on the
trashcan icon. Not laughing anymore? Good.

Ok, let's grant that people deserve reward for innovation and all
that.

But at what point have the software vendors really established state
enforced monopoly businesses?

At what point are their businesses *only* viable in this so-called
capitalist economy because they've managed to get the taxpayers to
spend millions (if not billions) of dollars enforcing their
profitability?

Let's try some facts...

Phoenix Technologies (the BIOS folks) recently claimed that they're on
the verge of belly-up-itude (Chapt 11, bankruptcy) because of piracy.

Whether that's true or not they were certainly trying to make a loud
point and influence lawmakers. And I'm not sure we should take their
emotion-loaded word "piracy" at face value.

Maybe their business is (quite possibly and by their own admission)
not viable in a free market economy.

They need heavy subsidies from the Justice Department to make a go at
it. They need our police and courts and investigative agencies and
lawmakers and lord knows what else. Or else they don't make money.

And, we're supposed to be concerned.

How come this is all starting to sound like the "not growing corn
business" and similar subsidies. Only this time, instead of direct
subsidies, it's legal services subsidies.

Ok, hey, if someone came into my store (I don't have a store, but if I
did) and stole something wouldn't I expect a "taxpayer's subsidy" of
the police coming by and ripping the guy's face off? What's the
difference? Ain't that a basic part of the so-called "social
contract"?

Well, there is a difference.

If I claimed that I'm going broke because about 20% of all high school
kids (a typical claim) was ripping my store off, all a bunch of
criminals, and therefore I need constant police surveillance, new laws
regarding handling of my merchandise both before and after it's bought
etc etc I think I'd be told to go take a flying leap.

In fact, unless there's something very unusual about your situation,
if you called the police more than like once a week (depending on the
size of your store, whatever, "a lot") and reported a new data point
in your personal shoplifting plague they'd tell you to go take a
flying leap (more like, go hire security guards, put the merchandise
somewhere it can't be ripped off, anything, but this has to be mostly
'your' fault.)

Is it possible...

Is it *just* possible?

That selling $2 floppies for $395 might just not be a completely
viable way to make a living (that is, without the police coming in to
hit people over the head with sticks if they don't pay the $395.)

Hey, no one is forcing you to buy it! Or use it (ie. rip it off)?

Barry, are you arguing that if something is too expensive then
stealing it is somehow justified? The old five-fingered discount?

No, of course not.

I'm just saying that, well, if I left gold jewelry on a table in a
public place unattended and it was ripped off there's no doubt the
people who stole it were thieves.

But there's also no doubt that I was a fool and deserve only minimal
sympathy from the authorities (ie. the public's tax dollars) in
recovering my property. Even if it drove me out of business.

And it's just possible that folks with attitudes like the SPA and
Apple would be a hell of a lot happier as Commissars in the Soviet
Union where you can go running to the govt authorities every time
someone breaks one of the silly rules you had created and your
(potentially) fabulous profits dwindle.

Da, vee charge 50 rubles for a bottle of good state wodka and these
INGRATES make their own for 5 kopeks and von't buy ours! Vee make
wodka illegal to make without special license they can't get! Then vee
get our 50 rubles! Anyone make their own, off to gulag! (oops, forgot
about the AT&F, sorry...)

But a free-market economy is no place for this (very expensive)
nonsense.

And I for one am getting quite disgusted with these companies' blatant
attempts to create state-sponsored software monopolies.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/14/89)

In article <1989Dec13.213445.13639@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> Now, consider for a moment "the other side". Like the SPA (Software
> Publisher's Association.)

I'm the other side. I'm not the SPA. I don't agree with their goals.

There are two kinds of software, with two kinds of market. Commercial
software, primarily oriented towards computer-naive users. And Free
software, primarly oriented towards computer geeks. Each has their place.
I have written a lot of both, myself.

The GNU folks don't seem to understand that there's rhyme or reason to
commercial software.

> But at what point have the software vendors really established state
> enforced monopoly businesses?

When you can't write your own version of their software and sell it or
give it away. Ask a hard one.

Let's see you write a free IBM-compatible BIOS. But why should you? It's
not of any interest to computer nerds.

> That selling $2 floppies for $395 might just not be a completely
> viable way to make a living (that is, without the police coming in to
> hit people over the head with sticks if they don't pay the $395.)

You're not talking about selling $2 floppies.

If the pirates (yes, pirates) are so damn good, let them write their own
freeware version of XYZcalc. If they can, they'll put XYZco out of business.
Otherwise, XYZco has made a significant investment and created a new good
that they wouldn't have created if they weren't going to make money at it.

And GNU will never produce an XYZcalc clone. It's not cool.

> Da, vee charge 50 rubles for a bottle of good state wodka and these
> INGRATES make their own for 5 kopeks and von't buy ours!

But they don't make their own. They steal it and sell it for 5 kopeks.

> And I for one am getting quite disgusted with these companies' blatant
> attempts to create state-sponsored software monopolies.

And that's why I'm getting disgusted with folks like you who can't tell
the difference between naive users... who need a hell of a lot of
handholding (but don't want to pay for it)... and computer freaks.

The only other solution is to make the software incomprehensible without
a lot of real handholding and sell support. That's the society you're gonna
create if you win.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/15/89)

Peter DaSilva writes:

>I'm the other side. I'm not the SPA. I don't agree with their goals.

Ever hear the saying that there are *more* than two sides to every story?

>There are two kinds of software, with two kinds of market. Commercial
>software, primarily oriented towards computer-naive users. And Free
>software, primarly oriented towards computer geeks. Each has their place.
>I have written a lot of both, myself.

Perhaps there is a better way to distinguish between the two types. 
There is commercial software which is written primarily because the
people involved want to make money and they think that writing programs
for a living is a lot easier and a lot more fun than digging ditches or
serving in the armed forces or working as a social worker.

Then there is public domain software which is written by people who love
to program, people who need a package that does something a commercial
program doens~t do (or asks too much money for), or people who just
wrote a little program and thought that someone else might want to use
it.

Then there~s FSF and GNU software.  GNU software is good (ie. it~s worth
using).  I think that most people here would agree, otherwise this
discussion wouldn~t be raging.  Now, going on the assumption that GNU is
good software and you will want to use it, what *better* way for rms to
get you to do what he wants than by using the very same rules and
regulations that corporations like Microsoft use to charge more for
their programs than some people (myself included) think it is
worthwhile.  Some people have said that no one is forcing us to *buy*
software we think is overpriced (disregarding any lack of software to do
what we *need* it to do) - we can either write our own or do without. 
Now, some other people (or was it the same people?) are saying that they
really wish that rms and the FSF would change their minds and forget
about GPL and the copyleft because they would *really* like to use bison
and gcc (or whatever the particular programs were) and its hard to find
software thats as nice as that for what they want to do (in their
opinion, of course).  Now, we *could* say "Hey - you lose!  No one is
forcing you to use GNU software - so take a flying leap and get the heck
out of our faces - go do your own thing"  In fact, some claim that this
has been said "Write your own <smirk>"  Well, that~s what rms did - he
didn~t like the actions that some group was taking, he had access to
their stuff, he reversed engineered the software and viola - he had a
version to use (or give away as i believe he did) and he didn~t have to
put up with the other people bs.

So, to make a short point even more long winded -> compromise is *not*
out of the question for most of the people who support GNU.  As for rms
and the FSF i can not speak for them.  However, note that i am not
against *shareware* where i can send the author however much *i decide*
the program is worth to me.

>The GNU folks don't seem to understand that there's rhyme or reason to
>commercial software.

The GNU folks, contrary to your opinions, specifically mention your
stated concerns about commercial software -> they not only allow, but
will provide you with a list of people who offer *support and
hand-holding* for their software.  They also encourage you to do the
same thing (rms does it).  On the other hand, they do say - if i want to
run your program without the expensive cost of supporting other users,
etc. i should be able to do so.


>Let's see you write a free IBM-compatible BIOS. But why should you? It's
>not of any interest to computer nerds.

Of course not!  Computer nerds would *never* be interested in actually
building hardware!  Computer nerds are only interested in compilers,
debuggers, and the latest version of tetris.  Get real.  If no one is
interested in BIOS, then why does Phoenix claim that pirates are running
them out of business?  Now, the fact that *most* pirates are high-school
kids, most of whom have neither access  to nor the information we in
college (and out of college) have could well explain why they don~t
write their own - they don~t know how!  You should not assume that
simply because it hasn~t been done - it won~t be.  Or that it isn~t a
fun hack.  What is fun for you is a different kind of pain for me.  What
i consider fun you probably consider bizarre or wierd or even stupid. 
What you *can* say (and what i gather you are saying) is that given that
MicroSoft hadn~t written Excel or Word, you sure-as-blue-blazes wouldn~t
have either.


>If the pirates (yes, pirates) are so damn good, let them write their own
>freeware version of XYZcalc. If they can, they'll put XYZco out of business.
>Otherwise, XYZco has made a significant investment and created a new good
>that they wouldn't have created if they weren't going to make money at it.

See previous post about "pirates".  Note: pirates and supporters of GNU
are not an identical set - ie. they do not contain all of the same
members.  While some pirates would support GNU, most that i know would
not - they are not interested in intellectual property rights, they
simply think that the computer industry charges too much for the
software - so one guy buys it and the rest get it for free....let~s
see....$30 ... 1000 copies....that~s not too bad...what~s that?  3 cents
a copy? (my math may be wrong - i am not a math major)

pirating is a purely reactionary action - it attempts to circumvent an
industry that, like *you* Mr. DaSilva ignores them or worse yet, calls
them computer nerds in an attempted insult (apparently).

>And GNU will never produce an XYZcalc clone. It's not cool.

I don~t know about XYZcalc, but if you bother to *read* the GNU
manifesto, it specifically states that rms intends to have one
spreadsheet - (barring contributions from others).  Now, if *you~re* so
good at programming, why don~t *you* write a XYZcalc clone and use GNU
source for part of it so that it falls under GPL  - that way, you~ll be
happy, rms will be one step closer to completing his GNU, and we~ll all
heap loads and loads of praises on you.  All hail Eris!  All hail Slack!
 All hail DaSilva!  Of course, we probably won~t *pay* you much, but
then again, you never know - if XYZcalc is such a hot thing, then maybe
we~ll all just fall over ourselves in order to give you what we consider
just recompense.  Note: you *can* sell GNU software.  but you *must*
tell people that it is available for free - provided you don~t charge
outrages prices, you could make a decent amount of money simply by
providing a gnu for pcs or (god-and-rms-forbid) macs - most people, like
you say, are too clueless to do it themselves, so you could still make
money off of them, and i still wouldn~t have to pay you for a service
that i don~t *need* from you!

>But they don't make their own. They steal it and sell it for 5 kopeks.

Again you falaciously mix GNU and pirating in the same barrel.  Pirates
steal teh software and then trade it for other stolen goods.  GNUers
give away the software which is free in the first place (no theft
involved) and sell hand-holding support and GNU provision services.  As
you say, there is a wide demand for this kind of thing, so you should
have no problem making a lot of money doing it.  I have friends back
home who are barely out of high-school (and did it while in high-school)
who make $25 to $50 an hour selling consultation services - they don~t
write the software - they don~t even provide the software - they simply
hold hands and walk away with lots o cash.  Now, why should the user
have to pay an additional $400 for the original piece of software?  With
the amount of cluelessness in the world today, it is not uncommon for
them to make $200 or even $300 dollars in two days.

>And that's why I'm getting disgusted with folks like you who can't tell
>the difference between naive users... who need a hell of a lot of
>handholding (but don't want to pay for it)... and computer freaks.

I won~t say that your disgusting, but....:-)

seriously, you make similar errors in assuming things.  first, the
clueless ones are paying for handholding - check out the people who are
supposedly providing this "no-charge handholding" - the same people who
payed the programmer to "write" the program and usually the quality of
their handholding is barely above "what - a system error - oh, that
means you gotta reboot!"  Gee, that~s worth the extra amount of money i
paid for that piece of software.  

Secondly, as i gave an example of above, people are often turning to
consultants in order to get their handholding, as
joe-average-software-house doesn~t provide adequate support or worse yet
(like Borland) they drop support of their programs - where are we to
turn to then, mr. dasilva, if not to consultants who have found it worth
their while to learn how to use Turbo Pascal for the mac (one of the
reasons i stopped using macs on a regular basis around Christmas last
year).
I have often provided consultation for these same consultants - for
free.  my primary pursuit is *not* money - it is knowledge.  rather than
charging people $25 to $50 an hour in order to pay my tuition, i take
out loans and beg and plead the government to help me out.  Perhaps
you~d rather i charged people more money than i thought my services were
worth (the only way i could afford the $18,855 approx. that it costs to
go to CMU).  I, instead work for $4.50 an hour at the library and as a
computer cluster attendant - i give a decent amount of handholding,
watch the computers, file maintainence reports, etc. - all jobs that
someone needs to do in order for us to have computer labs for the
students, and i still make a comfortable living - $321 is my next
projected paycheck - for only two weeks of work (34 hours one week and
31.5 another week, some of which were from midnight to 8am at 5.62 an
hour - we leave it up to the serious netter to figure out how many
graveyards i worked these last two weeks )  I don~t live expansively -
in fact, most of my money goes for long-distance calls back home to
texas and for food, school books, clothing and incedentals.  It~s not
much, but i~m happy.
  


>The only other solution is to make the software incomprehensible without
>a lot of real handholding and sell support. That's the society you're gonna
>create if you win.

That~s not true.  If "naive users" need as much handholding as you
claim, then you will have no shortage of people asking you for
consultations.  However, you will not have the *computer geeks* asking
you for help - they~ll figure it out themselves.  What~s wrong with
that?  You yourself say that computer geeks make up a small portion of
computer users.  Are you saying that you couldn~t afford to absorb the
potential loss of business (not really, as computer geeks probalby woudl
avoid your software anyway - or steal it) that comes from sharing your
source and only providing hand-holding (the prevalent need as you seem
to state it).  If, perchance, you were to decide to sell me the source,
i would probably turn around and incorportate it into something that
falls under the GPL so that it would have to be made available upon
request.  Given equal access to resources, the programmer who produces
the code best suited for the market will make the most money (so says
free-market economy theory).  What~s the matter, afraid of a little
competition?  Already we have a lack of access to resources due to the
physical nature of hardware - why should you be allowed to impose a
restriction on an intangible think like the random spewings of your mind
(assumign creativity is spewing and programming is creative).  If you
want credit, then there~s certainly nothing wrong with that - however,
why should you be able to force everyone else to pay you and then not
even give them the things that may well be most useful to them - the
source code.  

Of course, you could alway says (with a tone of superiority) "well, if
you want it, then reverse engineer it!"


>-- 
>Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
           yes, i have - and he liked it too.       
>`-_-'
> 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

oh yeah?

well....


iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think |
jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank |
R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS|
disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/15/89)

From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) [Responding to me]
>> But at what point have the software vendors really established state
>> enforced monopoly businesses?
>
>When you can't write your own version of their software and sell it or
>give it away. Ask a hard one.

But that was my point, we are at that point. You CAN'T write your own
version of the Mac interface and sell or give it away (that is, you
can, but Apple has made it clear that if you do they will sue your
butt and the courts appear ready to back them up.)

>If the pirates (yes, pirates) are so damn good, let them write their own
>freeware version of XYZcalc. If they can, they'll put XYZco out of business.
>Otherwise, XYZco has made a significant investment and created a new good
>that they wouldn't have created if they weren't going to make money at it.

You seem to be utterly unaware of what look and feel software suits
are all about, no?

You can't "write your own freeware version", that's the entire point
and if you don't understand that you've utterly missed my point. The
whole nature of a look and feel suit is a copyright suit based on the
fact that your software simply "looks" and "feels" like my software,
no common code need be present at all.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs

rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (12/16/89)

In article <1989Dec13.213445.13639@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>Is it possible...
>
>Is it *just* possible?
>
>That selling $2 floppies for $395 might just not be a completely
>viable way to make a living (that is, without the police coming in to
>hit people over the head with sticks if they don't pay the $395.)

  The cost of developing software is *NOT* related to the cost of a
disk.  Really.  Truly.  I could spend a year developing a software
package, and if I were lucky sell 1,000 copies of it.  What if I'm
charging, say, $10.  That's low enough that piracy probably won't be a
major problem (though it's hard to say).

  Assuming no distribution costs, disk costs, advertising costs, etc.,
I will have a return of $10,000 on my year of work.  I'm not going to
write too much software at that rate.  And selling 1,000 copies of
many software packages is actually not bad at all.

  More realistically, a complex system like Lotus 1-2-3 costs millions
of dollars to develop, write manuals for, and test.  The company has a
responsibility to its shareholders (this is capitalism, after all :-)
to make as high a profit as it can.  So it charges enough to cover its
(considerable) expenses, and to return a reasonable profit to its
shareholders.  $20/copy just isn't going to do it.

>I'm just saying that, well, if I left gold jewelry on a table in a
>public place unattended and it was ripped off there's no doubt the
>people who stole it were thieves.
>
>But there's also no doubt that I was a fool and deserve only minimal
>sympathy from the authorities (ie. the public's tax dollars) in
>recovering my property. Even if it drove me out of business.

  All right, let's think about this...if I wrote a program and sold it
without a near-perfect form of copy-protection, and somebody pirated
it, there's no doubt they were a thief.  But I was a fool to sell it
without the copy-protection.  Therefore, I should sell software only
with copy-protection, even though this may make it less usable.  A lot
of companies used to do this, but luckily many have given up on it.

  This analogy is flawed, anyway...we haven't got copiers for gold
jewelry (yet).  Quite a difference....

		Anton

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

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)

In article <1989Dec15.035457.7968@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) [Responding to me]
> >> But at what point have the software vendors really established state
> >> enforced monopoly businesses?

> >When you can't write your own version of their software and sell it or
> >give it away. Ask a hard one.

> But that was my point, we are at that point.

I agree.

> You seem to be utterly unaware of what look and feel software suits
> are all about, no?

No.

I agree.

Apple's behaviour in this case is unethical. I think it ironic that one of
the losers in this case is Atari (I don't know the details of the agreement
between DRI and Apple over GEM, but I do remember that they had to change
the GEM interface, so GEM on the Atari ST is no longer the same as GEM on
the IBM-PC). You see, Atari was the "winner" in the original Pac-man look
and feel lawsuit. Ironic.

Where we don't agree is whether or not this is relevent to normal copyrights
and piracy. I don't see that it's any more relevent than Werner von Braun's
lawsuit against Tom Lehrer. That is: there's a connection, but it's pretty
far removed from GNU.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)

In article <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes:
> Ever hear the saying that there are *more* than two sides to every story?

Noice to hear. I've been getting the impression that the FSF folks see only
two sides: themselves the likes of Apple.

> Now, some other people (or was it the same people?) are saying that they
> really wish that rms and the FSF would change their minds and forget
> about GPL and the copyleft because they would *really* like to use bison
> and gcc (or whatever the particular programs were) and its hard to find
> software thats as nice as that for what they want to do (in their
> opinion, of course).

Not me. I couldn't care less if they released Bison or not. In fact I wish
they weren't on the market. They're making it harder for the folks trying
to get REALLY freely-redistributable stuff accepted.

> Now, we *could* say "Hey - you lose!  No one is
> forcing you to use GNU software - so take a flying leap and get the heck
> out of our faces - go do your own thing"  In fact, some claim that this
> has been said "Write your own <smirk>"  Well, that~s what rms did - he
> didn~t like the actions that some group was taking, he had access to
> their stuff, he reversed engineered the software and viola - he had a
> version to use (or give away as i believe he did) and he didn~t have to
> put up with the other people bs.

Fine. No problem with that.

The problem is that Microsoft doesn't try to assert rights over other people's
source code. Apple does, but then I agree with the folks who call Apple
unethical. I don't really see that much difference between RMS and Apple.

Your argument *here* seems to be "RMS is more moral than Apple, therefore
he's a saint.". I just think he's less of a scoundrel.

> Of course not!  Computer nerds would *never* be interested in actually
> building hardware!

BIOS is software.

> Computer nerds are only interested in compilers,
> debuggers, and the latest version of tetris.  Get real.  If no one is
> interested in BIOS, then why does Phoenix claim that pirates are running
> them out of business?

Maybe they are. It's *expensive* to reverse-engineer IBM's bugs.

> What you *can* say (and what i gather you are saying) is that given that
> MicroSoft hadn~t written Excel or Word, you sure-as-blue-blazes wouldn~t
> have either.

I haven't seen *any* PD software that wasn't either (a) oriented towards
computer geeks, or (b) strictly limited in utility. Prove me wrong. Provide
a counter-example.

> See previous post about "pirates".  Note: pirates and supporters of GNU
> are not an identical set

Never even implied they were.

> pirating is a purely reactionary action - it attempts to circumvent an
> industry that, like *you* Mr. DaSilva ignores them or worse yet, calls
> them computer nerds in an attempted insult (apparently).

Hell no. I'm a computer nerd. And proud of it.

> I don~t know about XYZcalc, but if you bother to *read* the GNU
> manifesto, it specifically states that rms intends to have one
> spreadsheet - (barring contributions from others).

I have a spreadsheet. It's called SC. It's freely redistributable. It's
also pretty limited by comparison with commercial versions.

> Now, if *you~re* so
> good at programming, why don~t *you* write a XYZcalc clone

It's no fun.

> Again you falaciously mix GNU and pirating in the same barrel.

Nope. I'm talking about two seperate populations. The people at the FSF who
compete with Microsoft and Borland with freeware compilers, and the pirates
who compete with Microsoft and Lotus with pirate copies of 1-2-3 and Word.

[ long discussion of how he works for free and lives off my tax money ]

Go ahead and charge for your services.

> What~s the matter, afraid of a little
> competition?

Hell no. I'm all in favor of free software. I write free software. And I write
for-pay software. I just don't agree with coercing people to write free
software.

> (assumign creativity is spewing and programming is creative)

Them's fighting words. Remember: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

> Of course, you could alway says (with a tone of superiority) "well, if
> you want it, then reverse engineer it!"

I've done it, when I needed to. I'd certainly like to have more source
available. I just don't feel justified in forcing people to give it to me.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) (12/17/89)

From: rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang)
>  The cost of developing software is *NOT* related to the cost of a
>disk.  Really.  Truly.  I could spend a year developing a software
>package, and if I were lucky sell 1,000 copies of it.  What if I'm
>charging, say, $10.  That's low enough that piracy probably won't be a
>major problem (though it's hard to say).

I didn't say it was, I was only talking about the perception of
consumers (subjective reality), to a lot of them they simply see that
they're being charged, say, $395 for a couple of floppies and a manual
(book.)

That's not an outrageous comment, haven't *you* ever complained about
a book that cost, say, $75? Ever been tempted to just share one with a
friend or take it out of the library instead (or even, gasp, xerox the
few pages you needed from a borrowed copy?) Did you, at that moment,
fret about some poor authors/publishers behind it? Nah, you just
needed the info in the book and figured you were being a clever
consumer, thrifty, whatever.

C'mon, we've all had that reaction to something or other. And although
it may be true that there was an author, production costs etc behind
that price we still felt like it was a rip-off. Consumers aren't
rational, so what? That's capitalism, everyone drives their best
bargain and slipping thru the cracks is usually considered fair play.

(In fact, and risking soap-boxing political philosophy, it's the very
existence of a zillion little laws and rules which makes slipping thru
the cracks seem morally justifiable since we've reduced morality to
external influences, ie, have you followed the letter of the law,
rather than any internal sense of justice, consider the tax codes,
only a naive fool would hesitate to take a deduction because the govt
needs the money. The parallels might not be obvious, but they're
there.)

The main reason it doesn't plague the music industry more (it does) is
that a pre-recorded cassette tape usually costs under $10 and the same
quality blank tape is about $5 so it's usually not worth the trouble
unless you have a lot of time on your hands. What do you think would
happen if they cost $50? As much as they bellyache (they do) it's
largely been made liveable by sheer economics.

My point is (what *is* your point, Barry?) that there is a level at
which duplication becomes so much cheaper than buying the original
that you create a situation where about the only thing which can save
your business is massive government intervention and subsidy, and that
is not a healthy situation (and it's the current situation in the
software biz for a lot of companies.)

>  Assuming no distribution costs, disk costs, advertising costs, etc.,
>I will have a return of $10,000 on my year of work.  I'm not going to
>write too much software at that rate.  And selling 1,000 copies of
>many software packages is actually not bad at all.

Boo-hoo. Capitalism doesn't give flying leap, so die, so what? There's
plenty of jobs at McDonalds if the economics of your business doesn't
cut it.

Ok, that was harsh, but the fact that it costs you a lot doesn't
justify creating government monopolies to ensure your profits. And
that's what this is all about (I realize you aren't arguing with that
exactly, but you should be, or at least acknowledging what
conversation you are in the middle of!)

>>But there's also no doubt that I was a fool and deserve only minimal
>>sympathy from the authorities (ie. the public's tax dollars) in
>>recovering my property. Even if it drove me out of business.
>
>  All right, let's think about this...if I wrote a program and sold it
>without a near-perfect form of copy-protection, and somebody pirated
>it, there's no doubt they were a thief.  But I was a fool to sell it
>without the copy-protection.  Therefore, I should sell software only
>with copy-protection, even though this may make it less usable.  A lot
>of companies used to do this, but luckily many have given up on it.
>
>  This analogy is flawed, anyway...we haven't got copiers for gold
>jewelry (yet).  Quite a difference....

In the first place, I didn't say a word about copy-protection, you
just introduced that. I hate copy-protection and strenuously resist
buying such software.

In the second place, it's *THEIR* argument that COPYING == THEFT, not
mine! That's what forces the analogy. The flaws are inherent, it's
possible you were on the verge of understanding the other side of this
argument right there but you probably resisted the thought.
-- 
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade         | bzs@world.std.com
1330 Beacon St, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 | {xylogics,uunet}world!bzs

wilson@carcoar.Stanford.EDU (Paul Wilson) (12/17/89)

In article <4773@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
>
>Apple's behaviour in this case is unethical. I think it ironic that one of
>the losers in this case is Atari (I don't know the details of the agreement
>between DRI and Apple over GEM, but I do remember that they had to change
>the GEM interface, so GEM on the Atari ST is no longer the same as GEM on
>the IBM-PC). You see, Atari was the "winner" in the original Pac-man look
>and feel lawsuit. Ironic.
>
  Maybe not so ironic.  There's a fine line between innovation and
  nearly-arbitrary design choices.  In the case of a video game, the
  "look and feel" is extremely important to the functionality of the
  product, in more ways than is the case for a graphical interface
  to a computer.

  In the case of Pac-Man, the look and feel is an essential part
  of the innovation that may or may not deserve protection.

  In the case of the Mac GUI, all of the important innovations
  were swiped from Xerox.  The ones they're suing over are nearly
  arbitrary, analogous to the placement of car's brake and 
  accelerator pedals.

  It seems to me that Atari may have been trying to avoid giving
  other people a free ride on Pac Man's innovation, but Apple
  is trying to keep people from getting a free ride on Xerox'
  innovation, by stifling the development of standards.  They're
  nitpicking about arbitrary or nearly-arbitrary details, rather
  than true innovations.

  On the other hand, I don't really know much about the source
  of Pac Man's ideas/design choices, so maybe Atari is scumbags
  too.  But it's certainly not clear they're on the same side
  of the (admittedly fine) line as Apple.

     -- Paul



Paul R. Wilson                         
Software Systems Laboratory               lab ph.: (312) 996-9216
U. of Illin. at C. EECS Dept. (M/C 154)   wilson@carcoar.stanford.edu
Box 4348   Chicago,IL 60680 

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/17/89)

In article <1989Dec16.211504.3448@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
> The main reason it doesn't plague the music industry more (it does) is
> that a pre-recorded cassette tape usually costs under $10 and the same
> quality blank tape is about $5...

If you could sell as many copies of a piece of software as you can a tape,
and if the production costs were as low, then this analogy would hold water.

> Ok, that was harsh, but the fact that it costs you a lot doesn't
> justify creating government monopolies to ensure your profits.

The fact that the industry in question (quality software for folks who aren't
computer geeks like you & I) wouldn't exist otherwise, though, changes things
a bit.

> that's what this is all about

Not really. If you can reverse engineer it it's not a monopoly. If you can't,
it is. That's the difference between Apple and Microsoft.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/18/89)

In article <4774@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>I haven't seen *any* PD software that wasn't either (a) oriented towards
>computer geeks, or (b) strictly limited in utility. Prove me wrong. Provide
>a counter-example.

You must not look very far.

I will define "strictly limited in utility" to mean more limited than
comparable commerical software. I submit Uniterm, a terminal program
for the Atari ST. Given the large number of modems in this world, obviously
they are not used only by computer geeks.

There is also a spreadsheet program for the ST which includes a full
set of math functions plus graphing, with a full GEM interface. This means
it's better than the original Visicalc. However, since I'm merely
destroying your *any* claim, I shan't submit it.

By the way, Atari didn't get hurt that much in the DRI/Apple suit. They
didn't have to change their GEM version one bit. DRI's later GEM
versions have this awful desktop, while we still have a nice one.

------
Greg Lindahl

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/18/89)

In article <1989Dec18.052331.4514@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> I will define "strictly limited in utility" to mean more limited than
> comparable commerical software. I submit Uniterm, a terminal program
> for the Atari ST. Given the large number of modems in this world, obviously
> they are not used only by computer geeks.

Terminal programs are oriented towards computer geeks. They're spillover tech,
but they're one of the most used items on any nerd's list of programs.

> There is also a spreadsheet program for the ST which includes a full
> set of math functions plus graphing, with a full GEM interface. This means
> it's better than the original Visicalc. However, since I'm merely
> destroying your *any* claim, I shan't submit it.

Is it up to Lotus-123 level, or is it merely better than other Atari ST
program?

> By the way, Atari didn't get hurt that much in the DRI/Apple suit. They
> didn't have to change their GEM version one bit. DRI's later GEM
> versions have this awful desktop, while we still have a nice one.

Yeh, but one of the big things about the ST was that it was a kindler, gentler,
IBM-PC. (AN IBM with no segments!) That's no longer true.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/19/89)

In article <4791@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>Terminal programs are oriented towards computer geeks. They're spillover tech,
>but they're one of the most used items on any nerd's list of programs.

Well, Peter, if you can change your definitions at will and claim that
software that is used by non-computer nerds is actually nerd software
because you say it's so, then I withdraw my comment. I obviously
can't overcome your bias. Your prize, a pair of rose-tinted sunglasses,
is in the mail.

>> There is also a spreadsheet program for the ST which includes a full
>> set of math functions plus graphing, with a full GEM interface. This means
>> it's better than the original Visicalc. However, since I'm merely
>> destroying your *any* claim, I shan't submit it.
>
>Is it up to Lotus-123 level, or is it merely better than other Atari ST
>program?

There is a Lotus 1-2-3 clone for the ST. I hope you were not asuming
that ST software would naturally be less functional than software for
other machines. I'll also point out that many Lotus 1-2-3 features aren't
usable by end-users and are actually computer nerd features...

p.s. it turns out that you're right that rms wants to ban selling software,
and all vegetarians want to ban meat... I read about it in Time magazine!
A fur farmer said "first they'll ban fur, then leather, and then meat."
Gosh, and I didn't even know my own hidden agenda...

------
Greg Lindahl

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/19/89)

In article <1989Dec18.235119.8828@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes:
> Well, Peter, if you can change your definitions at will and claim that
> software that is used by non-computer nerds is actually nerd software

If you were willing to sit down and think about what I'm saying instead of
acting like a literal-minded idiot you'd see the point. Terminal programs are
computer-geek software because they're something that other computer-nerds
will look at and say "wow, you're a cool frood you" and give the guy who wrote
it an ego-boost. So he'll go back and do it again and make it better. Can't
you keep an argument straight for two messages in a row?

Spreadsheets aren't in the same category. Computer nerds don't get excited
about them.

> >Is it up to Lotus-123 level, or is it merely better than other Atari ST
> >program?

> There is a Lotus 1-2-3 clone for the ST. I hope you were not asuming
> that ST software would naturally be less functional than software for
> other machines.

Yep, all other things being equal. I'd expect that programs needing a lot
of RAM would be better on the ST, but all other things being equal there's
more people writing stuff for the IBM-PC.

> I'll also point out that many Lotus 1-2-3 features aren't
> usable by end-users and are actually computer nerd features...

They don't do anything Nerds really want to do. But I've seen some
accountants producing amazing things by abusing 1-2-3. At least I assume
they're amazing: not being an accountant I can't tell. Other bean-counters
seemed excited. That's another category of hot PD software: 123 macro
templates. Of course a non-123-compatible spreadsheet won't be able to use
it...

> p.s. it turns out that you're right that rms wants to ban selling software,
> and all vegetarians want to ban meat... I read about it in Time magazine!

Well, I read about it in the GNU manifesto.

> Gosh, and I didn't even know my own hidden agenda...

No, you probably do. But apparently you don't know or care abour RMSes.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/20/89)

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
> In article <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu>, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes:
> Noice to hear. I've been getting the impression that the FSF folks see only
> two sides: themselves the likes of Apple.

It's true - it's true - some of us really *do* get carried away, don't
we?

> Not me. I couldn't care less if they released Bison or not. In fact I wish
> they weren't on the market. They're making it harder for the folks trying
> to get REALLY freely-redistributable stuff accepted.

Noted.  I think that GNU could block free (as in NO-restrictions)
software from being accepted, as long as people don't distinguish
between Free software and what somone earlier called GNUfree software.

> Fine. No problem with that.
> 
> The problem is that Microsoft doesn't try to assert rights over other people's
> source code. Apple does, but then I agree with the folks who call Apple
> unethical. I don't really see that much difference between RMS and Apple.
> 
> Your argument *here* seems to be "RMS is more moral than Apple, therefore
> he's a saint.". I just think he's less of a scoundrel.

You're right, he is less of a scoundrel.  The point is that there are
*no* saints - we're all scoundrels to some degree or another :-)
Better to hang your hat with a scoundrel like rms than with scoundrels
like Sculley and Jobs.  Also, Gates is no saint, either.

> BIOS is software.

Used to run hardware!  (but, of course, you knew that!)

> Maybe they are. It's *expensive* to reverse-engineer IBM's bugs.

True.  And *time* consuming.  You can also get a severe case of
insomnia just from contemplating the task.  I, for one, can't figure
out why the guys did it.  Unless it was for fun, money, or slack.

> I haven't seen *any* PD software that wasn't either (a) oriented towards
> computer geeks, or (b) strictly limited in utility. Prove me wrong. Provide
> a counter-example.

I don't deal in PD software for the most part.  That is - the software
i use is either a) licensed by the university (saving me the cost of
doing so myself) or b) contributed by the users: note: this is not
necessarily PD software - it still belongs to the people who wrote it
- but it is available for public use and sometimes public perusal.

> Never even implied they were.

Fine.  That's not what i read into your posts, but that is *my*
problem.

> Hell no. I'm a computer nerd. And proud of it.

Takes one to know one, right?  Funny thing that - most of us *are*
proud to be computer nerds.

> I have a spreadsheet. It's called SC. It's freely redistributable. It's
> also pretty limited by comparison with commercial versions.

Did you write it?  Did the authors not understand how to write a
spreadsheet (not an uncommon thing in PD software, i suppose)?  Did
they not have enough time, interest, slack?

> It's no fun.

Well, if it's no fun for you, what makes you think it wouldn't be fun
for someone else.  Now, *i* don't write one, cuz i don't know *how*.

> [ long discussion of how he works for free and lives off my tax money ]

I seriously *doubt* that i live off of *your* tax money - most of
*your* tax money goes to defense and the war on the
constitution...er...i mean drugs.  All in all, i probably see maybe
about $1 or so of your tax money, if you pay a *whole lot of taxes*.
So, tell you what .... you give me your address, and i'll send you $1.

Also, i *dont'* work for free.  I get *paid* to watch the cluster.
Part of my limited responsibilities are helping users.  Most of the
time, though, i help users, even when i'm *not* getting paid.  Also, i
don't charge $25 to $50 an hour, cuz i'm not *comfortable with that
price range*.  You, of course, might be.

> Go ahead and charge for your services.

I do.

> Hell no. I'm all in favor of free software. I write free software. And I write
> for-pay software. I just don't agree with coercing people to write free
> software.

Assuming there is something wrong with coercion in the first place,
then i would have to agree with you.  However, i'm still not sure that
there's anything wrong with coercion.  Note:  i do not *like* to be
coerced, but then again, if i did, it wouldn't be coercion, now would
it? 


> Them's fighting words. Remember: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

Depends on what you consider hard work (ie. perspiration)  I *like* to
debug programs, especially mine (good thing too - most of my programs
have more bugs than a swamp in the summer time).   Others consider
this the "hard" part of programming.

> I've done it, when I needed to. I'd certainly like to have more source
> available. I just don't feel justified in forcing people to give it
to me.

That's understandable.  I don't feel justified in forcing peopel to
give me $50 an hour.  To each his own.

> -- 
> Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
> `-_-'
>  'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"


iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think |
jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank |
R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS|
disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me

tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/20/89)

Greg Lindahl:
> p.s. it turns out that you're right that rms wants to ban selling software,
> and all vegetarians want to ban meat... I read about it in Time magazine!

Peter da Silva:
> Well, I read about it in the GNU manifesto.

Where?  Quotes please, from the GNU Manifesto.  Maybe I'm developing
Alzheimer's disease or something but I do not remember him saying he
wanted to ban selling software.  I've even asked him whether he wants
such a thing and he says no.  He has not said anything about legally
making you, or Miles, or Apple, or anyone else unable to sell
software.

Peter must be tired of hearing this from me.  I know I am tired of
seeing him say things like this.  It is very curious; I have a lot of
respect for Peter and even agree with him on a lot of other issues on
the net.  But everytime I see him report things wrongly about GNU like
this, and I point it out, I never see either a rebuttal or an
admission of error.  He just waits a couple of months and then says it
again.  What gives?

Dave
-- 
   (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))

rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (12/20/89)

>>>>> On 20 Dec 89 9:12pm EST, tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) said:

[ quote deleted ... Dave asking Peter for a quote to cover his
assertation that he "read about it in the GNU manifesto."
Tale> Peter must be tired of hearing this from me.  I know I am tired of
Tale> seeing him say things like this.  It is very curious; I have a lot of
Tale> respect for Peter and even agree with him on a lot of other issues on
Tale> the net.

Ditto.

I just noticed recently in fact that they were the same person.  I had
associated that wolf sorta signature with well thought out messages,
but these sorts of things are just off the cuff sort of jabs which
aren't based in fact, but still cause problems with their falsity
because it's just the sort of thing that some people want to hear.
--
Rodney

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)

Good lord. Let's not agree in a hurry. We'll have nothing to talk about.

> *no* saints - we're all scoundrels to some degree or another :-)
> Better to hang your hat with a scoundrel like rms than with scoundrels
> like Sculley and Jobs.  Also, Gates is no saint, either.

I choose not to hang my hat with any scoundrels if I can help it.

> > I have a spreadsheet. It's called SC. It's freely redistributable. It's
> > also pretty limited by comparison with commercial versions.

> Did you write it?

Nah.

> Did the authors not understand how to write a
> spreadsheet (not an uncommon thing in PD software, i suppose)?  Did
> they not have enough time, interest, slack?

I think they made it do the things they needed done, and left it at that.

> Assuming there is something wrong with coercion in the first place,

Well, I've occasionally been accused of being a libertarian. But then I've
also been accused of being a right-winger. I dunno.

> > Them's fighting words. Remember: 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

> Depends on what you consider hard work (ie. perspiration)  I *like* to
> debug programs,

Yeh, but how about writing documentation?
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"

peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (12/20/89)

In article <Z''4~$@rpi.edu>, tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
> Peter must be tired of hearing this from me.

Yeh, real tired.

> I know I am tired of seeing him say things like this.

That RMS believes selling software is just plain wrong? That the GPL is
designed to force people to give software away? What is it that you think
I'm saying that I can't support? RMS has stated that it's wrong to sell
software at a price that will allow you to recover your development costs:
he wants you to give it away for effectively media charge. If you use any
GNU code in your program, it falls under section 2b of the license and you
have to give it away.

> But everytime I see him report things wrongly about GNU like
> this, and I point it out, I never see either a rebuttal or an
> admission of error.

Sure you do. You tell me I'm wrong. I repeat the paragraph above in some form
or other, and you either ignore it or tell me that I didn't mean what I
thought I said.

> He just waits a couple of months and then says it
> again.  What gives?

Damned if I know.
-- 
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
 'U`  "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"