[Tfug] Shameless Software Trafficking (Wildly OT)

[Claude Rubinson]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 02:11:41PM -0700, Jim March wrote:
> So can somebody explain to me why it's illegal for Win3.0 to ensure
> that it's running on MS/PC-DOS underneath, yet it's legal for Vista to
> block any attempt to run it underneath Linux to give it some measure
> of serious malware protection?  I can't see how one could be found
> illegal (leading to a $200mil payday for DR-DOS's owners) yet my
> damned similar case be legal on Microsoft's part.

Then you're welcome to sue Microsoft and take them to court.  But the
DRDOS case didn't void their copyrights on Windows XP and it's still
illegal for you to obtain Windows through a non-authorized channel.

Whether you believe it is morally wrong to obtain Windows in violation
of copyright law is a separate matter.  Personally, I do believe in
some form of authorship protection.  And when I write software that I
believe to be non-trivial, I rely upon copyright law by placing it
under the GPL.  In my opinion, it would be hypocritical to expect
others to respect my copyright if I'm unwilling to respect the
copyright of others.  YMMV.

Claude