Alan Pinstein wrote:
>
> If a freeware author infringes on another's copyright, then it DOES
> materially affect the original author. He is losing sales because someone
> has used illegal means to create an alternative to his software that is
> free. That affects the original author's livelihood. How can you disagree
> with that?!
OK, I'm about to get controversial here...
I wouldn't say that the original author is losing sales because of the
_means_ by which the freeware was produced -- he's losing sales because
there is a free equivalent to his product. A fine distinction, but an
important one, IMHO. That is to say, if the freeware author duplicated
the functionality and quality of the commercial author's work, but
infringed no copyrights, the commercial author is no less "damaged".
Now, if the freeware author broke laws, then obviously this is a bad
thing. HOWEVER, if the freeware author simply provided an equivalent
product at no cost, this is, in fact, a _good_thing_, isn't it? It's
this kind of thing that keeps the state of the art advancing. True,
it's not so great for the commercial author that is affected, but it
simply underscores what all of us already have learned (usually the hard
way) -- if you aren't constantly upgrading your product, you're going to
lose users...
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
John Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://presys.com/~johnm/
"There are trivial truths & there are great truths. The opposite
of a trivial truth is plainly false. The opposite of a great
truth is also true." -- Niels Bohr
Don't waste your vote. Flex your muscle. Vote third party.
Don't give away your privacy. Don't buy a Pentium III.
------------------------------------------------------------------
