[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
Benjamin M. A'Lee wrote: > My point was that what Microsoft consider to be their rights do not > necessarily match what UK law, or the law in any other territory, > considers to be their rights. > I think we can all agree that Microsoft can 'go forth and multiply' ;) > No. You're taking me out of context; part of my email you removed > mentioned the original purpose of copyright being so that an author > can earn enough money to make creating a work worthwhile. This is > perfectly legitimate, though I don't see why a non-free licence is > necessary just to make money from writing software. > I didn't take anything out of context. I'm simply stating the basic fact that a person who writes a program is just as much an author as one who writes a book or a piece of music, and by that has the right to have their work protected, and as you just said 'to make creating the [program] worthwhile. > What I *strongly* object to is a company like Microsoft charging ?400+ > for an *office suite* and having the nerve to stick a ridiculous licence > on it, that all but requires one's first-born son to be posted to > Redmond. > We all have the right to choose not to buy software we believe to be ludicrously priced (on that example I agree with you). Games for example - I happen to like the game Max Payne, but I refused to buy the sequel when it came out at £30. I've just purchased it second hand on Play.com for £5. When the software companies come round to realising this pattern of purchase exists, and consumers more vocally demand value for money, I hope we will see software prices fall. It's already starting to happen with DVDs, different market of course, but I hope the logic will follow on. Kind regards, Julian -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html