Fascist Licensing Agreement
David W. Berry
>I still say this. You should go look up Fascist in an encyclopedia.
OK. Well, actually it's a dictionary, Mirriam-Webster to be
precise:
fascism \......\ n 1: often cap: the body of principles held by
Fascisti. 2: a political philosophy, movement or regime
that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized
autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
suppression of opposition. - fascist adj. often cap.
Not actually knowing what body of principles Fascisti held
I will have to assume that point to sums them up in a nut shell. Hmm,
well software distribution could be a movement.
"exalts nation and race"
That might refer to you can't get the stuff from anybody else
"centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader"
and that's the way its going to be until we decide differently.
"severe economic and forcible suppression of opposition"
and we'll sue your pants off if you don't agree to it.o
Well, if you actually stretch it just a little, it is a
Fascist Doctrine.
Maybe if we try real hard we can get Apple on 60 Minutes, just
like Proctor and Gamble was.
David W. Berry
d...@well.uucp dwb.Delphi
dwb.GEnie 293-0544.408.MaBell
DOWN WITH FASCIST APPLE!
(By the way, jimb was arguing the policy isn't Fascist lest anyone
think I'm attempting to misquote him by quoting out of context)
--
David W. Berry
d...@well.uucp dwb.Delphi
dwb.GEnie 293-0544.408.MaBell
DOWN WITH FASCIST APPLE!
Jim Budler
>In article <12...@amdcad.UUCP> ji...@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes:
>>I still say this. You should go look up Fascist in an encyclopedia.
> OK. Well, actually it's a dictionary, Mirriam-Webster to be
>precise:
>
> fascism \......\ n 1: often cap: the body of principles held by
> Fascisti. 2: a political philosophy, movement or regime
> that exalts nation and race and stands for a centralized
> autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader,
> severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible
> suppression of opposition. - fascist adj. often cap.
>
> Not actually knowing what body of principles Fascisti held
>I will have to assume that point to sums them up in a nut shell. Hmm,
>well software distribution could be a movement.
> "exalts nation and race"
>That might refer to you can't get the stuff from anybody else
> "centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader"
>and that's the way its going to be until we decide differently.
> "severe economic and forcible suppression of opposition"
>and we'll sue your pants off if you don't agree to it.
>
>Fascist Doctrine.
That's a LOT of stretching. You're always forgetting they OWN the software.
There is a long way between distributing something free, and severe
economic anything.
Any owner of a Macintosh can, without charge, get a copy of the Apple software,
by visiting his dealer (a distribution delay may be present).
Any owner of a Macintosh can for a relatively small cost join Compuserve or
Delphi and download the software.
All OTHER avenues of obtaining the software are forbidden. TRUE.
You have two choices:
1. Agree not to pass out copies of the software.
2. Don't get the software.
All other choices are illegal. Whether you like the law or not. But
take your poor attempt to equate it with Fascism into any professor of
law, logic, political science, or philosophy, and it will cause a lot of
laughter.
--
Jim Budler
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.
(408) 749-5806
Usenet: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra,intelca}!amdcad!jimb
Compuserve: 72415,1200
It may be stupid, it may be safe, but it's not Fascist!
Stretch it a little, stretch it a lot,
get your little rubber definitions here!
d...@well.uucp
>In article <13...@well.UUCP> d...@well.UUCP (David W. Berry) writes:
>>In article <12...@amdcad.UUCP> ji...@amdcad.UUCP (Jim Budler) writes:
>All other choices are illegal. Whether you like the law or not. But
>take your poor attempt to equate it with Fascism into any professor of
>law, logic, political science, or philosophy, and it will cause a lot of
>laughter.
True. That's why I didn't bother putting a smiley on it. I
thought it was realtively obvious I was being facetious.
s...@van-bc.uucp
I don't know what happens elsewhere but I would doubt that more than ONE
copy of the new System/Finder/License/Misc was downloaded in the Vancouver
area. This is not to say that it is not available from at all of the good
dealers (and they didn't get it from Apple), most of the software developers
and anyone who knows anyone.
I would not be suprised if the local Apple folks got it from the same person.
(Their official copy will undoubtedly arrive within a month or so, Canada
is at the very end of the distribution list it seems.)
It would seem that Apple is trying to protect themselves with this
agreement. However in the real world -:) no one seems to pay much attention
to it.
As far as costs go, time to get into CServe and download the 600k is
probably the major reason most people would rather just make a copy of
the disk (contrast 2 minutes with 2 hours plus). They just can't be
bothered. Of course $25 is no laughing matter either. I suppose people
would feel more guilty about it if Apple was actually getting part
of it. (In point of fact CServe is setup to pay Sysops a percentage for traffic
on various areas like Maug. Perhaps some of this is being channeled
back to Apple. I would doubt it though.)
The whole point of the exercise is Apple is quite unlikely to come barging
into anyones office demanding to see proof of downloading / copying from
an authorized source. (What would such proof consist of? A huge bill from
CServe on my MasterCard?) And given the impossibility of proving the source
of the material, human nature being what it is, most people are going to
do exactly what they have been doing since day one with Mac software. Getting
a copy from WHEREVER they can. Let's face it, if you've been waiting for
months to get it you'll do whatever is necessary to get it. Usually that
means a quick trip with a case of beer to who ever you know that has
a CServe account.
It will be interesting to see if Apple pay's any attention to this ongoing
dialog. Possible reactions could include:
- no more distribution via BBS
- a more intelligent agreement which reflects reality
I'm also waiting for someone to post a message to say that they did download
it N times, once for each of their N machines ( or N friends).
T Cox
With regard to Apple distributing new System and Finder via CompuServe,
s...@unix.UUCP (Stuart Lynne @ SLI) writes:
>(In point of fact CServe is setup to pay Sysops a percentage for
>traffic on various areas like Maug. Perhaps some of this is being channeled
>back to Apple. I would doubt it though.)
CServe pays between 5 and 22 percent comission on the revenue generated by
a database or forum [according to popular press -- I've not spoken with
CServe officials on this]. MAUG's a high-volume area, so it's probably a
low percentage [or ought it to be a high percentage for high volume?] I
am under the impression that MAUG is run by an independent users' outfit
so I *sincerely* doubt that Apple gets any kickbacks. I imagine that Apple
authorized MAUG as a distributor of upgrades simply because (1) they could
still legally claim to be maintaining copyright and control of copying
[if you fail to attempt this, you may lose your copyright in court!] and
because (2) it's faster and more convenient for many [not all] Apple
customers. Without MAUG, that one copy downloaded in Vancouver wouldn't
exist, and you'd all still be waiting. Apple can't condone it without
jeapordizing their copyright [I hope I have that right or I'm gonna look
even dumber than usual] but you *will* note that they're making it pretty
easy for all of us to obtain the upgrades quickly from friends.
>It will be interesting to see if Apple pay's any attention to this ongoing
>dialog. Possible reactions could include:
>
> - no more distribution via BBS
Find me a faster way and I'll agree.
> - a more intelligent agreement which reflects reality
The reality of common copying practices, or the reality of copyright
laws?
I hope that someone out there who *really* knows about this [the legal
requirement that one protect one's copyright or lose it] will post something.
I, however, refuse to crosspost to net.vile-creatures. I mean, uh, net.legal.
"God I hate lawyers. Don't quote me on that; I may need one."
-= Thomas Cox =-
CompuServe: 76317,3121
GEnie: CLIPJOINT
UUCP: c/o ...ihnp4!gargoyle!sphinx!see1