Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!sugar!ficc!peter
From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Software, development & copyrights
Message-ID: <5487@ficc.uu.net>
Date: 3 Aug 89 14:32:28 GMT
References:  <26@ark1.nswc.navy.mil> <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>
Organization: Xenix Support, FICC
Lines: 34

I said I wasn't going to get back in here, but I have one point that
I think needs to be made:

In article <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
> Ok. Let's take an example I'm familiar with (as opposed to Ferranti,
> which I'm not), and consider passenger cars. A company produces those,
> and charges some extra amount for whatever software is on board. Now,
> assume they make the source code to that software available. Two
> things happen: 1) those people who sell roms to change the performance
> now have an easier job, and can charge marginally less for the roms.

And the manufacturer is now liable for damage caused by these hacked-up
ROMS. You will, of course, make the claim that the FSF license will
absolve them of responsibility, but such all-inclusive disclaimers have
not held up in court.

> 2) backyard mechanics have an easier time tweaking the proms.

And suing GM.

[Oh, let's add one more thing. Mike here is saying that profits are a
 bad thing:]

> If you prefixed that with "to maximize profits," I'd agree. However, I
> don't think you've demonstrated a need other than that. That's not
> sufficient.

But it is. In a competitive environment that reduces to "to minimise
costs".
-- 
Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now
Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  writing is the sentence
Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |  you are now reading"