Leslie Newell <lesnew...@fmail.co.uk> wrote:
> I'm jumping into this one a bit late and I am undoubtedly going to get
> flamed for this but I think there is a place for closed source and
> licensing. ...
On the one hand, I agree with Duncan that copy protection is an
anti-feature from the point of view of the individual user.
Mostly, the copy protections work okay, but it's not unusual for
them to fail. In many cases it's because, by the nature of what
it has to do, copy protection has to include the most obscure
possible code (so it can't be cracked) to disable normal
features of the machine (copying files) in ways that are hard to
figure out or defeat. The techniques for doing that are riskier
for the user than normal techniques, and have some probability of
also defeating very reasonable uses, like backups. I've run into
serious bugs in copy protection, one of which cost me six hours
on the phone with Microsoft to get my Windows machine running
after XP decided that I had committed an act of piracy by
changing my WiFi card.
Now, having said that, I still have to agree with Leslie that,
horrible as it is, and much as I hate it, copy protection is
necessary for many software authors. If I remember the numbers
correctly, only a tiny percentage of users ever pay for
"shareware". If you distribute a million copies of your program,
and 10,000 users each pay you $50 for the program you spent 5,000
hours developing, you are okay. But if you are only able to
distribute 10,000 copies, and 100 users pay you $50, you've made
a dollar an hour for your labor, and that doesn't cut it. If the
users had to pay because there is no way to get the program for
free by copying it from someone else, you can afford to create a
program that 10,000 users need. As Leslie said, this is good for
the users.
My feeling about copy protected software is this: If you don't
want the copy protection, don't buy the software. No one is
forcing you to buy it. In my own case, I will generally choose a
worse, maybe a much worse, copyable and open source program over
a copy protected one. Many others feel the way I do and many
copy protection schemes fail because they drive away buyers.
But, as long as the author is not making secret attacks on your
system like the Sony rootkit, the software does belong to the
author and he has a right to sell it with copy protection if he
wishes.
I agree with Duncan on many of his excellent points. But I don't
think anyone abridges anyone else's freedom by writing software
and offering it for sale under closed source and a copy
protection scheme.
Now as for the discussion of religion - I'd be happy to jump into
that (have I done that already :^) I love to discuss religion
(I'm mostly against it) and I never get offended by people who
disagree with me about it. But I will restrain myself in the
interest of not boring everyone.
--
Alan Meyer
amey...@yahoo.com
_______________________________________________
Pan-users mailing list
Pan-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/pan-users
