SQLServerCentral / Editorials / SQLServerCentral.com / Buggy Forever / Latest Posts

RE: Buggy Forever

john barnett — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 09:25:12 GMT

The best non computing analogy I can think of is a book - you own the copy of it - whether paperback, hardback or ebook form, but you don't own the right to sell modify the content and give away copies or resell duplicates of it for personal gain.However even then there are parts that fall down - some software licenses try tp prevent transfer (and I include DRM enabled ebooks in that since in the UK ebooks are classified as computer software) whereas there is nothing preventing donation or sale of a paperback copy. Many charity shops would have nothing to sell if there is no way of legally transferring ownership of printed books or other items such as board games/clothing/jigsaw puzzles.

RE: Buggy Forever

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 07:40:16 GMT

[quote][b]john barnett (4/24/2012)[/b][hr]Steve - you don't buy the software. What you buy is a license to use the software in accordance with the terms and conditions in the accompanying license agreement.The software is not yours to own.[/quote]I think that's a problem. The software industry has some up with this "license" concept, and I'm not sure our laws are adequate to deal with it. I'm not sure I agree that software can only be licensed, first sale laws don't apply, products can be abandoned, etc. I don't know quite how I'd change things, but I do think there are loopholes in the law and poorly developed implicit contracts in use by many vendors that need some clarification so that both sides understand their rights.

RE: Buggy Forever

GSquared — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 06:34:33 GMT

RE: Buggy Forever

john barnett — Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:17:47 GMT

Steve - you don't buy the software. What you buy is a license to use the software in accordance with the terms and conditions in the accompanying license agreement.The software is not yours to own.

RE: Buggy Forever

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:33:16 GMT

I don't really want to OSS this stuff, and I'm not sure OSS works everywhere. I like FOSS/OSS software, but I think commercial software has a place as well.What I don't like is commercial vendors abandoning software because of money, and leaving customers with only a partial product. Even de-compiling it wouldn't be legal, which I do think is wrong. If someone has purchased it, they should own it.We need to come to some legal agreement on this whole buy/rent/own/lease of digital assets at some point.

RE: Buggy Forever

GSquared — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:04:57 GMT

I was going to comment about open source software being user-patchable, but I was beaten to the punch on that.There are other drawbacks to OSS, but that is one of the advantages. The product is never "end of life" till [i]you [/i]no longer need it.

RE: Buggy Forever

Chris Harshman — Mon, 23 Apr 2012 11:00:14 GMT

[quote]Unlike physical goods where the customer can manufacture their own replacement parts when the product is no longer supported, software is bound with a license that doesn't allow the customer to produce their own patches. I would like to see end of lifed software available to customers as part of an escrow process that allows them to build their own patches if they are needed.[/quote]This sounds alot like the philosophy behind open source software, to allow the customer to customize or change a product to meet their needs or fix some problem. With commercial software though, there's too much value given to the intellectual property of the code. The model expects that all things have a finite lifespan, a planned obsolescence, so that the company can sell more product. Companies sometimes donate their end-of-life products to open source community or similar efforts but this still seems to the the exception more than the rule.

Buggy Forever

Steve Jones - SSC Editor — Sat, 21 Apr 2012 15:37:57 GMT

Comments posted to this topic are about the item [B]Buggy Forever[/B]