[NTLK] h*cks, kr*ks, SN

[Lord Groundhog]

~~~ On 2010/01/17 16:42, Dennis B. Swaney at romad at aol.com wrote ~~~

> That would be a pretty arrogant action if 1. you stopped updating it, 2.
> no longer responded to email, or didn't publish a valid email address,
> etc. The problem is with software for which there is absolutely NO WAY
> to do the "right thing". If an author/publisher can't be located, and
> later does what you suggest, then I put that down to pure unadulterated
> greed. If they still want to be financially compensated, then it is
> mandatory that they maintain a valid way to do so.


Hi Dennis, 

I can't tell you how much I want to agree with you on this.  BUT ...

First, in particular, you talk about someone who "...no longer responded to
email, or didn't publish a valid email address".  Isn't this the electronic
equivalent to someone refusing to answer their phone or doorbell?  The fact
that Joe Bloggs can push my doorbell or dial my phone doesn't attach to me
any corresponding duty to answer either unless I feel like it or unless Joe
Bloggs is an officer of the law, and even then ...

And if there's no way to "do the right thing", isn't the legal and moral
requirement to "do nothing"?  For example, if my favourite grocery store is
shut and I can't get hold of the grocer because he's on holiday or whatever,
am I entitled to break in and take what I want, or am I required to do
nothing and go look for another grocery store?


Second, your argument sounds as though you're saying that once a software
author sells software, it stops being his/her software.  It even sounds a
bit as though you're saying that a software author has a kind of moral
responsibility in perpetuity to support his software rather than, say,
deciding to leave it to die for whatever reason.  So, if a software author
decides for whatever reason that he/she no longer wants to put any effort
into "super-fantastic.app", it sounds as though you're arguing that he/she
isn't really free to do so.  This would turn a "software licence" into a
"software deed", and as far as I know that isn't how it works.

I can't come up with a suitable model for this limitation to the rights of
software authors, but I'd like to suggest a model of my own for what I'm
trying to get at.  Considering that copyright law seems to provide for
software to remain the (intellectual) property of the author, I suggest
software has something in common with a piece of land.  If I own a plot of
land, I can make it into a private garden but allow it to be open to the
public, or turn it into a parking lot and make some money, or put up a 3
meter hurricane fence and "Keep Out!" signs all round it -- or even leave it
totally unmarked except for minimal indication that it is not (any longer)
public land.  Most importantly, I can change my mind if I like:  start out
with it as a free park, then start charging for it, then close it off.  And
no matter what I do with it, I'm not required to move it or hide it.

A person who writes software has offered a product, and if for reasons of
their own they no longer want to be bothered over it that's one of the
rights that corresponds to their ownership of the product, isn't it?

Third, and more incidentally, I don't see how greed has to be the only
explanation for an author who declines to continue supporting software.
That sounds like an illegitimate presupposition of motive.  I'd like to
suggest that the person simply decided that he/she no longer wants to
maintain the software, and anything that anyone does from now on lands on
their own head.  That in no way implies that he's surrendered his ownership,
only that he's exercised his right not to let his possessions add to his
work if he prefers to do nothing.  That leads to the alternative
interpretation that the use of a lawsuit in this instance (where "dormant"
software is being cracked) is a way of saying "I said, no trespassing!"  (I
regard the existence copyright as a sufficient "no trespassing" sign.)  In
this case the suit isn't in order to be compensated for someone's use of
his/her program, it's in order to be compensated for disturbing his/her
right to be left alone.

Finally, I really think that when we want a software writer to make it
possible for us to use a product which he/she has left dormant and
unsupported, it would be better if we remembered that we're ASKING for a
FAVOUR and acted accordingly, wouldn't it.  I'm afraid parts of this
discussion are starting to sound as though we want to remind him/her of a
duty to us and perhaps to demand our rights -- or worse, as though we're
threatening to seize control of HIS/HER property with or without permission.
I can't see how that can be productive even if it could be justified, which
I don't believe it can be.


Saying all that, I have a REAL problem with the idea that a person would
refuse to support his software and then also refuse to let anyone else do
what they can with it.  The expression "dog in a manger" comes to mind, and
it's not an attractive attribute in a human being, as Aesop noted.  And I'm
going to stop there; if I said what I really think about people abandoning
both their software and users who want their software, this e-mail really
might catch fire, and that's not in anybody's interest.

Just my 2 cents, inflation-adjusted.

 
Shalom. 
Christian 

~~~ ~~~ ~~~

³Any sufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from a Newton.²
            -- what Arthur C. Clarke meant

http://youtube.com/watch?v=1ZzpdPJ7Zr4
(With thanks to Chod Lang)
http://tinyurl.com/29y2dl
http://www.diyplanner.com/node/3942

~~~ ~~~ ~~~
Fight Spam.  Join EuroCAUCE: http://www.euro.cauce.org/
Get MUGged and love it: http://www.oxmug.org/
Join today: http://www.newtontalk.net/