Paul, at 13:13 on May 13 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

PE> I'm sure a few #ifdef's can fix that 

BG> Sorry Paul, most of that sort of stuff goes straight over the top 
BG> of my head.  Either speak in BASIC, or not at all.  |-)

PE> Conditional compilation.  Leaving out vast tracts of 
PE> functionality if no-one wants them.

IOW, user-selectable or configureable?

BG> Don't you proof-read?  |-)

PE> No.  Wastes too much time.

What about your source code?  Don't you proof-read that either?

PE> Nope, not at all.  Presumably you wouldn't be buying my hack from
PE> me unless there was some perceived value in it, and that is the
PE> value you are paying for. 

BG> Sorry, but I wouldn't PAY for it at all.  No offence intended, as 

PE> So in other words there's no harm in me selling a rival version to it, 
PE> because you wouldn't be buying it anyway.  So it's no skin off your nose.

Nice little side-step, but still missing the point utterly.

BG> Sure, I see your point, but would argue that if the original 
BG> source (and version) is PD, and cost you nothing to obtain, it 
BG> would be difficult to place a value on those additions which you 
BG> had specifically written yourself, said perception of precise 
BG> value being up to the user.

PE> Working out a price for my enhancements, is exactly the same as 
PE> working out a price for me writing the thing from scratch.

No, PD status aside, the original code still has a value to YOU in that it
has saved you considerable time writing it from scratch, and I'm saying
that it is difficult to place a specific value on that which you have
ADDED.

BG> without the original PD code in the first place, the enhanced 
BG> versions could not exist anyway.

PE> Sure, which is one of the great things about the PD code.  
PE> Without it you wouldn't have had so many choices available.  E.g. 

I can see your point, but why can't you see mine?

PE> I wrote some comms routines for both DOS + OS/2.  Other people are
PE> selling the comms routines.  Why is it OK for the author of a 
PE> comms package to go and buy some comms routines and use them, but 
PE> it's no OK for them to use my PD routines?

Because although they have much the same functionality, they are still not
the same segments of code.  Anyway, this is not a good example, as Chuck
Forsberg has officially released his Zmodem code into the PD anyway.

PE> Mark Kimes didn't like me creating PQWK, he wanted it to be 
PE> called PVERT.  I told him that if he fixed the bugs in PVERT that 
PE> I reported, I would distinguish PQWK completely, but if he wasn't 
PE> prepared to do that, I would continue with PQWK.  He wasn't too 
PE> happy, he didn't get his way, and that's his bad luck.

I assume that his PVERT code was PD, in which case I can see nothing wrong
with doing exactly what you have done with PQWK, as it is still
PD/freeware.  That's his problem.  However, if you started charging for it,
I could see his point.  Sounds like sour grapes right now though.

PE> BTW, someone based a shareware product (TLXPNT) on the Devil 
PE> Dialer. Good luck to them, too.  Some people thing that his 
PE> enhancements are worth what it costs, I've seen them pay the 
PE> money.  That is strictly a matter between the person who has made 
PE> the enhancements and the person who is buying those enhancements.  

How much of TLXPNT is specifically your code though?  If it's a direct
import, with a few of his own additions, I don't think he should be putting
it about as shareware.  Morally of course, not legally.  Just me, I guess.

PE> Personally I think they should just learn to use DD, warts and all.

As does Mark Kimes with PVERT, presumably.  |-)

BG> Smoking pot doesn't hurt anybody either, nor is it immoral, but try walking 
BG> past your local police station while smoking a joint, and you'll soon find 
BG> out that life is not quite as simple as you paint it.  |-) 

PE> Two things:

PE> 1. Smoking in public is indeed skin off my nose

Nope, not if it doesn't personally affect you.

PE> 2. Let me rephrase that statement - "How can anything be immoral 
PE> if it's no skin off anyone's nose and it's not illegal?".

Personal values, I guess.  Mormons think people who smoke, drink tea,
coffee, and alcohol are immoral, and that's their choice, as long as they
don't shove their beliefs down my throat.  None of those are illegal
though.

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10 alpha