Of course we must respect the laws, still they must have a merit, they must be applicable ... and still that the jurisprudence does not give them new directions ... custom also force of law .... As such, manufacturers of software and even operating systems are often "outside the law".
But things are drastically changing, again you are not very aware of what is going on!
The question is not there with regard to this thread, it is whether the fact of withdrawing
"de facto" the enjoyment of a property that one has already acquired is correct, and if the
"malicious will" is proven it is indeed an offense. So the laws must apply to everyone, right.
Raising the problem from a legal perspective was clever on your part, but it proved you wrong.
Jurists are today led to take up the problem again. So we have to take examples from other sectors of the industry and see if there are not conflicts of rights in practices and practices. And there we see that there is an abyssal void!
Because we must defer the use of computers to our practices in everyday life. When you buy a vehicle, you don't sell me the manual separately, nor the computer logic that makes all of today's vehicles work .... How it should be so different with IT . If you knew the history a little better (ie
"the custom") you would realize that the philosophy of those who were behind it was not to charge
"programs". Since the programs are the background task that allows the machine to be used!
Because in their minds, it would have amounted to charging twice for the work (I will not dwell on it, it seems so obvious. There are so many other examples: washing machine sold separately from the programmer, plane sold without its manuals, without autopilot, without logic control functions ... etc). The sale of software is a strictly commercial drift or could almost say that legally speaking it is an in
sworn. Or if you prefer this neologism:
"legal"! In the sense that it is a kind of "fait accompli" which has not yet really been sufficiently dissected according to the rules which prevail in the law (but do not count on me to give you a course, there are a lot of theses on this in college).
To explain why all this must be reviewed, is that we must take the problem at its simplest, a computer can be generally compared to a set of "open or closed" doors (or even "neither open" "nor closed "in certain avant-garde architectures, it seems to me ...). Thus, charging for a program amounts to charging a right to use a switch!
But things are changing, even if it's not easy! Because no one can deny that a program requires development time that must be paid. This does not mean that he must hold the consumer hostage, get paid several times by the redundancy of licenses, force the consumer into situations which - if he had known them - would not have acquired the good. .... etc. So should this price be included in the purchase price of the “hardware”? The debate has not finished raging, the question is still linked to abuse and the aim of the exercise is to correctly place the "cursor", which has not yet been done, to all evidence had regard to the said abuses which are proof of this.
Things are moving in "object programming" and "open source"
Le Journal du Net, 10 Nov 2010 wrote:Open Source: European Commission slapped on the wrist for choosing Microsoft
The European Commission will have to review its strategy for the internal use of Open Source software. It is currently on the verge of renewing a contract worth nearly 50 million euros, with Fujitsu, for the installation of Microsoft software on at least 36 computers operated by the Commission and other European organizations. officials. However, MEPs have stepped up to denounce the legality and the merits of the choice of the European Commission. The contract was indeed signed in the days following the$ 640 million fine imposed on Microsoft by the European Commission for abuse of a dominant position in 2008. Some MEPs invoked the law and considered that this conviction should have excluded Microsoft from the invitation to tender. Under insistent pressure from MEPs, the Commission said it is examining its strategy for the internal use of open source software. This official document will be reissued when updated.
In the era of object programming - since you speak of the law - once you have paid for the license for the use of such an "object" it is completely illegal and unjustifiable to charge it multiple times . By way of example, we can note:
- printer driver (generic PostScript, Draw, rasterization principle, etc.);
- management of other dedicated peripherals (screen, USB ports, SCSI, SATA, graphics tablet / s, keyboard / s);
- page description language (ie PostScript, TIFF, RTF etc);
... and the customization should be open source for the user, so that if a product is no longer supported, the owner can establish the links himself through a simple protocol mask, so that his device continues to work!
This list is not exhaustive, but given this thread, your position is hardly defensible! We cannot decently accept that each time the owner of a vehicle changes, the new purchaser has to buy a license just to read the driver's manual ...! We are in a totally absurd world where we go so far as to charge for "services" already implemented in the source code!
Already we often force the driver to relearn to drive ... It will be necessary that one day, for example with ISO standards, we stop this "endless story"!
I think that you know very well where I am coming from, that you understood the message a long time ago since you do not answer the previous questions I raised. We can therefore assimilate your intervention to paid spam.
Yes, yes, it eats up our "time" and I believe that you are almost the only person to defend this collection of preconceived ideas and odious business practices
"in the name of the law". So precisely that you know a priori that it is a world of predators, since you yourself were making a very inappropriate allusion to "bisounours".
Me, I like "bisounours", and I would like that future generations can continue to have sweet dreams. Innocence, carelessness, poetry etc ... are essential ingredients to stimulate creativity and keep hope for a better, brighter and fairer world ...
and without even being sure that the manipulation I was doing was really taken into account (except when of course the thing became completely unusable because I had made a mistake)
