On 07/07/2016 15:15, Marcel Kilgus wrote:
pjwitte wrote:
I agree with everything you say above. I presume you do not mean to
imply that any significant /future/ software must also be free.
I'm certain nobody is implying this, least of all Wolfgang and me.
When I changed EasyPtr, which was not written by me originally but
improved at a significant personal cost in terms of time, this was
again commercial. Considering the time spent on it I think I made 5€/h
on that one over all the years. Still I made it free now because I
cannot really in good conscience still charge for it anymore.
And don't get me wrong, the will of the creator should always be
obeyed.
Hehe, that presumably includes the Ten Commandments?
If Fred Toussi doesn't want Text87 to be released then I think
this is pretty weird because it's an amazing piece of software and a
shame that nobody can see how cool it was for its time, but hey, it's
> his call.
Talking of intransigent copyright holders (ie those who, unlike you,
Marcel, dont have a conscience) while they have a right to their
copyright, what rights do their users have? If someone no longer
supports, develops or sells their software, their users are stuck with
what they have. They may no longer be able to access or transfer their
own copyrighted material made with the software. At what point does
the value of their accumulated aggrevation equal the price/value of
the copyright? In other words, does copyright not come with any
obligations at all? If not, are users being made properly aware they
are buying transient toys instead of dependable tools?
> I don't necessarily feel the need to extend the same
> courtesy to people who didn't take part in the creation, however.
Were you thinking of that crazy story about Martin Shkreli (who bought
the rights to an essential medicine and then upped the price from
$13.50 to $750 - overnight - to pay off his debts as a failed
hedgefund-manager)?
Per
_______________________________________________
QL-Users Mailing List
