[CS-FSLUG] NI: How Linux Could Overthrow Microsoft

[Don Parris]

On 8/31/05, "‡ø®a Wei-Yee Chan (Made in Chinar)" <survivor at brisnet.org> wrote:
> Don Parris wrote:
> 
> > I'd like to make one correction to the article. The author states:
> >
> >"Proprietary software is licensed, not sold, with severe accompanying
> >restrictions on copying or modification. This scheme was not devised
> >by fools. It reduces piracy, rewards risk, and allows vendors to
> >enforce compatibility. And when a proprietary vendor controls industry
> >standards, it generates fantastic amounts of money; Microsoft alone
> >has created about ten thousand millionaires through employee stock
> >options."
> >
> >The fact is that proprietary software does not "reduce" "piracy" (that
> >should be copyright infringement) - it drives it.  I would say it
> >causes copyright infringement, but that is incorrect.  People cause
> >copyright infringement.  Even so, the very fact that it is proprietary
> >makes the infringement all the more likely.  It is difficult to
> >infringe upon rights someone else has already granted.  IMO, libre
> >licenses reduce the possibility - or better - the so-called
> >"necessity" of infringement.
> >
> >Don
> >
> >
> Possibly, what he meant was that people with existing data based on
> proprietary formats who cannot afford constant upgrades might be forced
> into practising piracy.  It took almost a day for me to convert all my
> MS office files to Open Office formats.  I believe it'd be a much harder
> task for companies.
> 
> _______________________________________________

But my point is that proprietary licenses don't reduce "piracy"; they drive it.

-- 
DC Parris GNU Evangelist
http://matheteuo.org/
gnumathetes at gmail.com
"Hey man, whatever pickles your list!"