Re: Where from to download ViaVoice outloud

[Thomas Ward <slingshooter@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I would like to add that just because Linux itself is covered under the 
GPL doesn't require a company to sell all it's software under GPL, and 
nor would I ask them to. Sun Star Office is such an example of commercial 
software for Linux as well as Quake III Arena. If everyone gave their 
software away as Red hat Mandrake, etc do it's likely the software market 
would fold, because veryone would get use to downloading this or that, and 
never get around to paying for it.
 I personally like Red Hat Linux and purchase the standard eddition for no 
other reason than  am putting money into the company insuring that the  
software continues, and the guy who worked to compile everything takes 
home a pay check.
Just think if everyone decided since Linux was free and only downloaded 
the free version, and never bbought a boxed copy how much Red hat would be 
hurting financially.
So sometimes you have to charge something, and you can't work for free and 
put food on the table.


On Mon, 3 Feb 2003, Tim Cross wrote:

> I was not talking about Viavoice, but rather responding to your
> question on the software dectalk.
> 
> I don't agree with your definition of commercial software. Any
> software which is paid for in my opinion is by definition commercial. 
> 
> There is certainly less restrictive commercial software out there, but
> my experience is the majority of software you purchase does not allow
> you to modify it, redistribute it or even copy it for anything other
> than backup purposes. In fact, many commercial software licences don't
> even allow you to reverse engineer the software which contains
> proprietary knowledge etc. 
> 
> Just for the record, I don't consider things like RedHat, SuSE and
> other Linux distributions as commercial software. These companies are
> not selling the software, they are selling the process of assembling
> the software into a distribution, support and other value added
> services. I also don't consider them commercial because you can obtain
> the software for free. Sometimes these distributions may contain some
> commercial software - but you will find when you investigate the
> licences for this software it does NOT allow modification,
> redistribution et al. As an example, RedHat use to supply a commercial
> X server with their professional version - the difference between the
> professional version and the freely downloadable version was this X
> server and you were not permitted to modify it, redistribute it or
> even copy it except for backup purposes. 
> 
> Simply because you purchase something in a free competitive market
> does not allow you to copy it or redistribute it, or even modify
> it. Can you purchase a music CD and copy it? Are you allowed to
> redistribute it - only if you distribute the version you have
> purchased, not copies. If you purchase a book, can you modify it and
> redistribute it? Can you copy it? No - this is what copyright is all
> about. 
> 
> Just because you pay for something does not give you its copyrights,
> which means your ownership comes with restrictions. Even GPL'd
> software is copyright, except the author has given some liberal
> permissions to modify, redistribute and copy as long as you abide by
> their requirements etc. 
> 
> Tim
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>> "Robert" == Robert J Chassell <bob@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
>  Robert> Regarding ViaVoice: For the $50US you get the runtime, no
>  Robert> sources and you are restricted to the normal restrictions
>  Robert> applying to commercial software.
> 
>  Robert> Much of the the commercial software I know about is sold in a
>  Robert> competitive, free market.  This means you have the right to
>  Robert> copy it, study it, modify it, and redistribute it.  It sounds
>  Robert> like you are talking about restricted software.  If so, you
>  Robert> are misusing the word `commercial'.
> 
>  Robert> IBM does both.  It restricts some of its software, but it is
>  Robert> shifting to commercial free software.  IBM says it spent more
>  Robert> than a billion US dollars on commercial free software in
>  Robert> 2002.
> 
>  Robert> IBM makes more than 20 billion US dollars per year selling
>  Robert> services, such as those related to commercial free software,
>  Robert> and even more selling hardware, such as S390 mainframes (or
>  Robert> are they called S3090s?  I don't know.  If you give me
>  Robert> several million US dollars, I will find out.)
> 
>  Robert> Sometimes there are difficulties.  I was told a year or two
>  Robert> ago by someone selling IBM mainframes, the S390s, that while
>  Robert> he was encouraged by IBM management to sell those machines,
>  Robert> at the same time, the lawyers for his group did not want him
>  Robert> to distribute any documentation for the hardware that you
>  Robert> spend several million US dollars to purchase ...  the lawyers
>  Robert> had not got the message that IBM is a corporation that is
>  Robert> supposed to make profits by selling ....
> 
>  Robert> Are you talking about restricted IBM software or
>  Robert> non-restricted IBM software?
> 
>  Robert> -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises
>  Robert> http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8
>  Robert> http://www.teak.cc bob@xxxxxxxxxxx
> 
> 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from the emacspeak list or change your address on the
emacspeak list send mail to "emacspeak-request@xxxxxxxxxxx" with a
subject of "unsubscribe" or "help"