Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top

People who don't write software may not understand that software, just like writing a book or a poem is a creative endeavor.
Software should be treated the same as other copyrighted material. Peroid.


Yes, it is, drag. I think the argument for "public domain" is also carried over into literature, etc, by people who may wish to use the software after it is unavailable for whatever reason (as one who has hunted down numerous out of print books, I see a parallel here). Perhaps, if such a law were enacted, a loophole could be given for developers who allow purchase without support on a limited basis (just a thought; I'd like your ideas on how to get some of that obsolete software to someone who has a legitimate use for it).

Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
People who don't write software may not understand that software, just like writing a book or a poem is a creative endeavor.
Software should be treated the same as other copyrighted material. Peroid.


I've written code, and I've attempted writing something that I called poetry. I totally agree that they both require effort, but I think that they are different things and use different skill sets. It doesn't make an investment of thousands of dollars useless if I can't reread someone's poem. Oh, and nobody ever told me I should burn my code...

Anyway, maybe there's a better way to go about it. I just hate reinventing the wheel every time I walk into a new client. Can't we get off this forklift, rip and replace upgrade treadmill?
Curtains - Customize Windows with additional styles
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know this is a bit off the subject, but I am glad you mentioned Disney, this is one company that agressively protects their intelectual property, but has littke or no regard for that of others, and have the legal mucle to circumvent these small irratations. I find it hard to have sympathy for many lage corporations which complain about copyright/patent infrindgement, while being in many cases the worst offenders. An example being Kimba the white Lion, and Simba, the lion King, the Simpons have a great tounge in cheek dig at this particular incident, which in the main seems to have been missed , as most incidents are. Of course we could then start on good old microsoft, not to mention SCO.
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top
I should add That I fully support people's right to copyright and patent protection, if someone does the hard work, then they deserve to reap the benefits. As for software should not be copyrighted, we have already an open source industry, we also have many people building products which they then copyright, and so they should, it's thier money and time that produces the product, if we lost this protection we would not have this blog site, notr would we have Object Desktop, people deserve to be paid for their hard work, and have the comfort that they will not have some lazy bastard come along and cahs in on their hard work and investment of time, money and interlect. If I write a peice of software, or a book or would be pretty pissed off if someone came along and reaped the rewards of my hard work, this is why we have these laws. I dare say that those who believe otherwise would cahnge their tune in the same position. Having said this I applaud the Open Source community for their contribution to the advancement of technology, but peole need to understand that these people do this because they want to, and in many cases in their spare time, so do not rely on the returns for them to earn a living, many others work for companies that support Open Source, these companies may give the software away for free, but they still charge for the support and service of these products, and still have some degree of protection on the technology and work they have put into refining these products. People who expect that all software should be free, really don't understand that if this was the case we would be still working with punch cards, and commodore 64s, technology advancement relies of billions of dollars of investment , this would never happen if the product could then be pirated by whomever, for their own gain. On the other side if the argument, just because a peice of technology may be redundant by the time the patent expires, does not mean the underlying technology is still not in use in more advanced products. If you want free software, then there's pelenty about, whicj in many cases then goes on to become technology we use, which at some stage has a patent or copyright attached.
Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with things becoming "public domain" after a certian length of time is seen when looking to disney:

They take products off the market after a certian period, usually for 10, 15 years, and then they re-release the product (usually in DVD format as opposed to the original VHS product). In the mean time, should bambi have become public domain? I think not.

Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just one more point, Patents should not apply where there is obvious conflict with normal day to day thought and activity, eg: paten or copyright you code, or any product, not the underlying idea or concept, take for instance the use of windows by microsoft, or word, they have every right to the name MS and its products and associated logos, not windows, for a start they did not pioneer the phrase windoes, in the sense of the GUI, yet they proscute any one who even uses a name which is similar, the word Windows, has many uses, either being descriptive as in the case of the GUI window, or it can be an actual thing to stop the cold, etc, or and expression, eg: the window to the sole.On the other hand the term Stardock, is not a widely used name, and in the case of the name Lindows 'V' Windows, You would have to say that the word windows is Generic , Lindows , is not who is the infringer of which name.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
The problem with things becoming "public domain" after a certain length of time is seen when looking to Disney:

They take products off the market after a certain period, usually for 10, 15 years, and then they re-release the product (usually in DVD format as opposed to the original VHS product). In the mean time, should bambi have become public domain? I think not.

Oh, and the problem with the Bill Gates analogy is that even if Bill did purchase the rights to the entire Beatles catalog, he could not prevent people from selling previously purchased Beatles records/cds, nor could he prevent the listening to said music.
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Reply #31 By: zergimmi - 1/14/2005 9:13:51 PM
Just one more point, Patents should not apply where there is obvious conflict with normal day to day thought and activity, eg: paten or copyright you code, or any product, not the underlying idea or concept, take for instance the use of windows by microsoft, or word, they have every right to the name MS and its products and associated logos, not windows, for a start they did not pioneer the phrase windoes, in the sense of the GUI


Oh really? Then who did? And please don't say Apple. Cause that's BS! Anyone that's been in the industry awhile knows that! MS has used the name since windows 1.0, which I still have a set of those disks. I have a set of ALL windows disks & cds to Windows 2000. Been doing this shtick for a loooooong time.