[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: Pirates
>>>>> "Jeff" == jeffk <jeffk@awinc.com> writes:
Jeff> On Fri, 25 Aug 1995, Bernie Doehner wrote:
>> Not sure if I said this before, but I am one of these
>> people. I have a big problem spending money on software in the
>> first place, and even more so on pre-production stuff. Once a
>> Linux svgalib production level version is out, I have no
>> problem spending $50 (ed discount or whatever), but if it costs
>> much more than that, I probably would try to get it pirated or
>> buy one copy and split it between 2 or 3 of my buddies.
>>
>> Bernie
NOTE: originally my plan was to totally ignore Bernie. However, since
a couple of people have responded already, I'll quickly toss my two
cents out.
Jeff> WHAT??!!!! I just DON'T understand this! If Executor didn't
Jeff> exist, the only alternative would be to BUY A MAC. That is
Jeff> MUCH more that $50.00 Therefore Executor is worth MORE than
Jeff> $50.00.
Another alternative would be to write Executor. It's only taken us
nine years, a handful of very talented people, and a few hundred
thousand dollars.
Jeff> It is this sort of thing that makes me recommend a copy
Jeff> protection scheme. I remember a interesting copy protection
Jeff> scheme my friend told me that he saw on his NeXT. He was
Jeff> 'trying' out an app. He changed the 'Registration'
Jeff> information on it. It changed properly. The next time he
Jeff> ran the program he saw his modem light up. The program was
Jeff> trying to e-mail the authors to tell them about an
Jeff> un-authorized copy. It even set up a cron job to repeatedly
Jeff> send it every day.
No. Most copy protection schemes punish the honest users and can be
defeated by a diligent cracker. The diligent cracker can then publish
the cracking information. Copy protection schemes which access users'
phone lines/modems or hard drives are very bad. I appreciate your
concern, but I disagree with those methods.
Jeff> Please people, if you need to use executor but can't afford
Jeff> it, then DON'T USE IT! The price is completely reasonable.
Jeff> Don't steal! If you you, may the bad karma come back and
Jeff> erase your hard disk and backups!
For those of you not familiar with karma, the idea is that if you do
something bad, especially something hypocritical, then "cosmic forces"
will come back and "get you". I am only pointing this out to contrast
it to the idea that Executor itself would come back to get you,
because it won't. As long as I am in charge of ARDI, we'll never do
anything like that.
Jeff> I am a Linux user as well, Bernie. Remember that the GNU
Jeff> PUBLIC LICENSE and the FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION have NOTHING
Jeff> to do with software that doesn't cost any money. The 'FREE'
Jeff> that they refer to is your FREEDOM to access the source code
Jeff> and modify it.
Executor is not free by the monetary definition, *or* by the Free
Software Foundation. The source to Executor is *not* available, so
end users can't correct bugs. In all honesty, if I had thought the
Free Software movement would have worked as well as it did, I probably
would have started ROMlib/Executor as free software. However, I
*didn't*. To use Executor beyond the time limit without paying the
license fee is breaking the law. Sometimes there are laws that
*should* be broken, but usually only out of greater need to serve
humanity, rather than to simply obtain goods or services at a discount
so that the money saved can be spent on goods or services that can't
be as easily obtained without money.
Jeff> It costs money to develop and support software. Be fair.
ARDI employees would have made more than $1,000,000 in
salaries/contract pay had they continued to work at their previous
jobs at their previous salaries/contract wages instead of working on
ROMlib/Executor. We are very glad that there are many people who
enjoy Executor and prefer spending some of their money to breaking the
law.
--Cliff
ctm@ardi.com
References: