Paul, at 18:22 on May 12 1995, you wrote to Bill Grimsley...

BG> As an OS/2 user with HD space and RAM to spare, it's of little or no 
BG> concern to me, but DOS users may have different ideas about losing most of 
BG> their precious base RAM to a memory pig of an executable.

PE> I'm sure a few #ifdef's can fix that if it every remotely 
PE> approached that.

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

BG> I just don't think it's right that somebody should profit 100% from work 
BG> which is not 100% theirs.  I'm a bit funny that way.

PE> They're not, they're profiting 100% from the improvements they
PE> made which are not 100% theirs. 
BG>                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
BG> Well, they shouldn't be IMO.

PE> Typo, get rid of the "not".

In that case, I wouldn't have commented.  Don't you proof-read?  |-)

BG> No, you're missing the point.  All I'm saying is that if, for 
BG> example, you decided to start flogging your MSQ hack as say 
BG> shareware, given that the bulk of the source code was written by 
BG> somebody else, it would be immoral.

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. 

Sorry, but I wouldn't PAY for it at all.  No offence intended, as I think
you have done a very fine job, and have obviously spent a great deal of
your own time doing so, just as I (and several others) have spent much of
our own time beta testing these updates, and rewriting docs, for example. 
I certainly don't expect to be paid for doing so though.

PE> It has to be a fair price, otherwise you wouldn't be paying it. 

And a fair price for somebody else's PD code is $0.00 IMO.

PE> Presumably the value will be better support, some more features, that sort 
PE> of thing.  If you don't think it's worth it, you can always stick the the 
PE> PD version.

Sure, I see your point, but would argue that if the original source (and
version) is PD, and cost you nothing to obtain, it would be difficult to
place a value on those additions which you had specifically written
yourself, said perception of precise value being up to the user.  And
without the original PD code in the first place, the enhanced versions
could not exist anyway.

PE> If you feel that way, don't write the PD stuff in the first place. 

If I thought that somebody else was going to make a living from work that I
had specifically done FOC, then I certainly wouldn't.

PE> In fact, if you think that it's so quick to turn a buck from PD code, 
PE> create a rival to Golded, and just watch the money roll in.

That's a different matter entirely.  You're talking about a rival now, not
just an enhancement to an existing freeware or PD program.

BG> Still missing the point utterly.  I think PD is great, and I'm 
BG> all for people improving existing PD code, just as long as they 
BG> don't turn around and attempt to make a profit out of what is 
BG> basically not theirs to begin with.

PE> It IS theirs to begin with.  It belongs to the public, just like
PE> the air you breathe.  You reckon I shouldn't be allowed to get
PE> "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" and rename it
"The Adventures
PE> of Paul Edwards", add a few pictures in, and then sell it?  

Even if that book was PD, I think the above scenario would be totally
immoral, unless you gave it away for free.

PE> The guy's been dead for god knows how many years.  It's no skin off
PE> his gravestone. 

Copyrights and royalties are assignable and willable, you know.  Just
because the original author is dead doesn't mean that the rights
immediately cease.

A good example is my father's music, specifically the themes he has written
for such shows as "Sale of the Century" and "Wheel of
Fortune", amongst others.  His annual royalties for these is in the
order of $200k at the moment (taxable, of course), and when he dies, these
royalties will be payed to those to whom he has willed them, his children
and his heirs.  They don't just suddenly cease.

PE> All PD does is speed up the process of getting people to die.  Presumably 
PE> churches shouldn't be able to sell the bible either.

Most don't, they give it away.  Who'd buy it anyway?  |-)

PE> Golded wasn't PM last time I looked, some people like PM, so you 
PE> could stick a PM interface on it and make a profit from that.

BG> That would likely be illegal as well as immoral.  GoldEd is not 
BG> freeware or PD, even though it started life as an old version of Msged.

PE> I meant add a PM interface to Msged.  Try to keep up.

Even though you were less than specific, and intimated a PM version of
GoldEd, I still knew what you meant.  Try harder boy.  |-)

PE> Don't waste time on templates though, you can lift that from 
PE> msged hopefully.  Capitalism works, Bill, as the Russians found
PE> out to their sorrow.

BG> You're talking about incentive now, such incentive being 
BG> financial.  Sure, it's not a perfect world, but it is slowly 
BG> improving, and anyway, after what the Russians have done to 
BG> countless other small countries like Afghanistan and Chechnya, 
BG> for example, they deserve everything they get.

PE> And if you have some base PD code to build on, it makes you so 
PE> much more productive.  A good thing for everyone.  NO SKIN OFF 
PE> ANYONE'S NOSE!!!  HOW CAN ANYTHING BE IMMORAL IF IT'S NO SKIN OFF 
PE> ANYONE'S NOSE?  BFN.  Paul.

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

Regards, Bill
@EOT:

--- Msgedsq/2 3.10 alpha