On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:41:43PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote: > > They have paid for a license to use it, and for nothing else. > > Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no? > Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or > applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software > is crippled in its usefulness. > > When buying electronic appliances, at one time you could rely on the > schematics being in the inside. That meant you could make full use of > the appliance, adapt it to different problems (using a radio as a > guitar amplifier), repair it and keep it in working order, and you > could take it to service men of your choice to have it adapted or > fixed. > > That's basically what workmanship is about: offering the best to the > customer to make use of.
Quite true. > Just 20 years ago, it was customary to provide computer purchasers or > service people with schematics, BIOS listings and similar stuff > (partly on request and for payment). Now it is trade secret this, > closed source that, not for your eyes this. All true, and I feel bad about this evolution myself, but please read what I wrote. You did not _pay_ for source code, portability to other system, schematics, or whatever, and that was very clear from the start, so don't claim you did. And if it's a bad deal, just don't buy it. -- FA
