Re: [OS:N:] (no subject)

Johnnie Peters <[email protected]> wrote:

>>
By the way I write you will soon guess that I am a programmer by
profession and not a writer.  C coding does not exactly encourage
spelling prowess in any way.
<<

LOL! Johnnie, if it's any consolation, everything I've seen suggests
there's an inverse correlation between spelling and coding ability; the
best coders I've seen couldn't spell for nuts. <g>

>>
In any case I keep seeing posts about
how people feel following their own morals is better than following the
law.  I would suggest following the more restrictive of the two if you
really want to stay out of trouble.
<<

If that was me, the point I was trying to make is that, almost without
exception, my own ethics are more restrictive than the law, which gives me
some comfort and reassurance that I'm on the right track. I agree with you
- I want to stay out of trouble and sleep soundly at night.

As an example, it really frosted me to go out and buy a copy of Windows XP
Pro last weekend. But I'd helped my daughter build a new computer for
herself and her big brother (see
http://www.lesbell.com.au/FamilyWeb.nsf/504ca249c786e20f85256284006da7ab/d5ee5048c8d38c40ca256d4600327e00?OpenDocument)
 and although Tux Racer was great fun, there were games she really wanted
to run under Windows and besides, I need to do some experimenting with XP
and Samba.

So I bought a copy of XP Pro. I resent paying so much for a piece of
privacy-invading teletubby-ware, but there's no way I'd pirate it, crack a
copy, etc. It's not that it's illegal - it's that I will not steal from
Bill Gates, because if I did, I would lower myself to his level, or worse.
Microsoft has the right to sell its product. End of story. I have the right
not to buy it, of course - and the practical ability not to, thanks to the
existence of alternatives.

You're right about the power of major corporations. Fortunately, we don't
have it as bad here (yet?). The trick is going to be to strike the right
balance. Laws that limit the power of monopolies are a step in the right
direction, but I detect a certain reticence on the part of the US
government to enforce them. Funny, that. However, the fact that some
companies are able to abuse the process is not sufficient reason to argue
that there is, or should be, no such thing as intellectual property. That
would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and would hurt a lot of
innocent bystanders:

>>
I know a couple of patent holders that big companies
are every day cheating on them.
<<

At a guess, there are also quite a few patent holders who aren't being
cheated on, and are enjoying the fruits of their labours (or their good
luck - fair enough). Removing patent protection would really hurt them. . .

Best,

--- Les Bell, RHCE, CISSP
[http://www.lesbell.com.au]



_______________________________________________
Subscription and Archive: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/open-source-now-list/
-
For K12OS technical help join K12OSN:
<https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/k12osn>