----- Original Message ----- From: "roymeo" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > And You should NEVER presume that you know my project better than I do.
You seem to have misunderstood the scope of my argument. Since I apparently wasn't clear enough about it, I was only talking about freely distributed software. Kiosks, as I said, are exceptions. There are other things that are exceptions for the same reason that kiosks are exceptions: they are not freely distributed software. > If the Client wants to reset the laptop resolution of those 50 > sales-people to 800x600, that is the Client's right to pay me to > implement. it might even make sense. The reason this is a special case in the same way that a kiosk is a special case is that the client *is* the end user. It doesn't matter what the salesperson thinks because it's not their laptop. If the client wants to install this on the home PCs of their sales force then we are back to the general case and no, you should not do that even if the client wants it because the client doesn't have the right to make that decision for the end-users. It simply comes down to who owns/administers the systems on which the projector is being installed. For everyday end-users in receipt of freely distributed software, they have no special pre-standing agreements with you about what you may or may not do to their computer so you simply do not have a right to go making assumptions about what is acceptable and what isn't. Anything that can potentially break their system simply isn't acceptable unless it is a user-instigated option. I do not see this as a difficult concept to understand or accept. If a client comes to you with a project that includes spyware in breach of all sorts of privacy laws (which obviously vary from country to country, but they do exist and this is hypothetical) should you break the law and develop that software for them anyway? No, you shouldn't. Even if it's not illegal to do something that can potentially damage a computer should you do that? No, it's not illegal but it's definitely unethical. In fact, even though changing the monitor resolution is assumed to be perfectly legal, you (either the developer or the client) may be legally liable for any damage that might be caused. However, since there has never to my knowledge been a legal test case to prove that, I'm not asserting it to be true: just saying it's something to consider, and ask whether it's a risk worth taking. Do specific contracts with the end-users make a difference? Yes, of course they do. Employees of your client are to a lesser or greater degree, the same entity, and may have signed away specific rights. In that case you can get away with more, if that's what the client wants and it's not illegal or unethical to do so. If however, the end-users have no special legal contracts with you or your client then they are not a special case. I hope I have now made it quite clear where I draw the line on this one and that I still do not agree that there are exceptions to the rule about not f!*"king with hardware settings without permission: the only "exception" I have made here concerns how permission is actually granted, but you still have prior permission of the *user* (who may or may not be the same entity as the client: understanding the difference is quite important). - Robert [To remove yourself from this list, or to change to digest mode, go to http://www.penworks.com/lingo-l.cgi To post messages to the list, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Problems, email [EMAIL PROTECTED]). Lingo-L is for learning and helping with programming Lingo. Thanks!]
