On Wed, May 22, 2002 at 10:18:35AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > On 21 May 2002, at 23:22, Richard Zidlicky wrote: > > > > > this is reasonable - but it makes it even more clear that the license > > has a problem. Someone buys HW with SMSQ included, his vendor/original > > reseller goes out of business and now what. The user can't even get > > the free SMSQ upgrades for his machine. > > Well isn't that normal?
it is absolutely not normal. In a normal world technically advanced users would be allowed to help those less technically capable by providing the binaries. You are really arrogant here, this is the best way to convince remaining users that they will get better support when they choose one of the many alternative OS. > I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but it is the reality of our world. If you > buy a product from someone who no longer exists, tough luck. Nope. If Mandrake or Redhat goes bankrupt the user has all possibilities to donwload binary and source packages from elsewhere. Notably, noone of the packages those vendors distribute in their standard distribution has such ridiculous restrictions as to require an official reseller or prohibit distribution of the binaries. > Likewise, who wouls take care of a hardware problem, if tour > reseller went "poof"? The situation for the software isn't different in > that respect. oh yes, it is *very much* different. If my HW goes poof I am free to go to an electrician around the corner and ask him to repair the HW.. I may be more or less lucky. However if my SMSQ is broken and I would go to the next IT consulting shop in Bamberg and pay them for compiling a SMSQ binary they would be acting illegaly if they would "distribute" the binary to me. Yes, I know I could also pay them to become official resellers of SMSQ but it is my money so I may not want this. Likewise anyone who would do me the favour of compiling SMSQ for free would do it illegally in your opinion? Richard
