On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:41:43PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
> > They have paid for a license to use it, and for nothing else.
>
> Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no?
> Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
> applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software
> is crippled in its usefulness.
>
> When buying electronic appliances, at one time you could rely on the
> schematics being in the inside. That meant you could make full use of
> the appliance, adapt it to different problems (using a radio as a
> guitar amplifier), repair it and keep it in working order, and you
> could take it to service men of your choice to have it adapted or
> fixed.
>
> That's basically what workmanship is about: offering the best to the
> customer to make use of.
Quite true.
> Just 20 years ago, it was customary to provide computer purchasers or
> service people with schematics, BIOS listings and similar stuff
> (partly on request and for payment). Now it is trade secret this,
> closed source that, not for your eyes this.
All true, and I feel bad about this evolution myself, but please read
what I wrote. You did not _pay_ for source code, portability to other
system, schematics, or whatever, and that was very clear from the start,
so don't claim you did. And if it's a bad deal, just don't buy it.
--
FA
Received on Sun Feb 26 20:17:32 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sun Feb 26 2006 - 20:17:32 EET