Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 20:16:58 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 22:56:08, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On August 07, 2001 at 19:01:55, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On August 07, 2001 at 17:56:37, Jay Rinde wrote: >> >>>Alberto might be wrong, but your reasoning would drive an insane man more >>>insane. What Alberto says does make sense. It just isn't the way the world >>>works and whatever the software company says must be law because they have very >>>expensive lawyers working for them. Who was it that said 2 plus 2 equals 5? >>>Jay >> >>I view it as someone saying: 2+2=5, and this must be true since nobody is >>paying enough attention to contradict me (including myself). >> >>If the license says you can only have it on one computer, it means that you can >>only have it on one computer. It doesn't mean that you can have it on more than >>one computer if the others are off. You might as well try to say that it means >>that you can have it on more than one computer as long as you aren't using more >>than one at once. If they'd have meant the license to say that, it would have. >> >>The terms are what the license says, and the fact that lawyers are involved >>doesn't excuse breaking them. The buyer could have taken the softwre back if he >>doesn't agree. >> >>If someone wants to say, "I see the terms and choose to break them, because it >>is of benefit to me," that's one thing. At least the person doing it is taking >>responsibility. >> >>What bothers me when people say, "I saw these terms, but I choose to break them, >>and this is alright because <fill in the blank>." That's a transparent attempt >>to *avoid* responsibility. > > >I'm uncomfortable with your way of looking at things. For instance, suppose >there is law that requires exposing Jews for extermination. As you can see, >there are good reasons that can "<fill in the blank>" quite well. > >In the case of Microsoft, if one believes they are a monopoly, I can see how >someone might believe they are justified in not following Microsofts dictates if >they feel Microsoft does the public (and them) harm as a monopoly. Whether they >are really justified (or whether it is "wise" to to defy Microsoft) is a >different story, but I would not say they are way off base. I disagree with that line of reasoning. IE if someone is found guilty of murder, do _you_ get to string 'em up? Or is that a function of the Justice department? I don't think individuals get the right to do whatever they want to a product of a company that may (or may not) be a monopoly. > > >> >>If people think it's wrong to do something, they shouldn't do it, or at least >>they should admit (to themselves at least) that they are doing something wrong >>(and live with their conscience). I think it's terrible when people do things >>they know are wrong, and yet which directly benefit them, and try to escape >>responsibility for it by saying they have some good reason for doing it. I >>think that's a bad attitude. >> >>bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.