Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 20:55:09 08/07/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 07, 2001 at 23:16:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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. I don't really see that we are in disagreement. If you read carefully, you should note that I did not really give *my* position on the matter. I was just trying to indicate that I was not strongly critical of a different position on the matter. > > > > >> >> >>> >>>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.