Page 3 of 4

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 5:58 am
by AdrianLP-p40
McKenzie wrote:For me, it was better to use something that was right when God then to use stolen software. The Church should be encouraging people to do what is right.


Cool, the stolen software debate. I wonder what stolen really means when you have taken nothing from the original person.

If someone quotes me, have they stolen my words? If an infinite amoutn of monkeys on an infinite number of keyboards writes a copy of Windows (it happened once already right <kidding>) is it stealing?

Laws are such fickle-funny things.

Oh, and I am a software developer before anyone complains about making a livlihood via software development :)

[edit]...and sure, someone is gonig to bring up laws. But I'm in Canada, I pay a tariff on blank media whether I pirate or not. We already have a precedent, and luckily Canada is a law of precedent. See, sometimes laws are in fact useful things <smiles>[/edit]

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:01 am
by McKenzie-p40
Yes, Tom. I know they do. Bad wording on my part. The PAF program is a good example of what I was trying to say. It works on Windows, but when I have tried to get it to run under Wine in Linux, it's impossible. I know I can use Gramps and maybe Gramps is better, but it still isn't the same.

I have a choice. I can use the PAF program (I can't remember its exact name, sorry!) under Windows or I can not use it. The only way I can use it, and the only way millions of others can use it is to use it under a pirated OS. I know it may not matter for many people, but it matters to me.

I am a fairly new member of the church, I do not remember where I read it in the Book of Mormon, but it said something to the effect that we should turn away from evil and turn to something good. It was very powerful for me.

If there is anything I can do to help port programs to Linux, I am willing to help out in any way possible.

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 11:25 am
by russellhltn
AdrianLP wrote:Cool, the stolen software debate. I wonder what stolen really means when you have taken nothing from the original person.


The time is not yet to live the law of consecration. ;)



McKenzie wrote:The PAF program is a good example of what I was trying to say. It works on Windows, but when I have tried to get it to run under Wine in Linux, it's impossible.


Check [color="Blue"]this thread[/color].

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:13 pm
by AdrianLP-p40
RussellHltn wrote:The time is not yet to live the law of consecration. ;)


I'm not sure that its a law of concecration thing. I'm not saying companies should openly shared products.

Its a bit like satelite TV. Whether you pay for an account or not, they bombard your house (all hosues) with signals from satellites. So why is it wrong if a person has the know-how to build a descrambler.

Similarly, imagine you were walking down the street. You overhear two people speaking piglatin. Its obvious they are trying to speak in a manner where others can't understand them. Now lets pretend you can work out what they are saying. If they tried to have you charge with theft, wouldn't you point out the ridiculousness of the situation?

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:58 pm
by Mikerowaved
At some point in our lives we must answer the question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:08 pm
by AdrianLP-p40
Mikerowaved wrote:At some point in our lives we must answer the question, "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?"


How is it not honest?

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:38 pm
by dstovall-p40
AdrianLP wrote:How is it not honest?


Just my 2 cents... If you know they require you to pay for the service yet you take it because you have the knowledge to do so that is the same as stealing, to me. If a door is locked it is not right for me to pick it simply because I know how.

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 1:46 pm
by AdrianLP-p40
dstovall wrote:Just my 2 cents... If you know they require you to pay for the service yet you take it because you have the knowledge to do so that is the same as stealing, to me. If a door is locked it is not right for me to pick it simply because I know how.


If I said, "Ok, nobody listen to what I'm about to say" in public, and then began to speak, could I blame others for stealing if they listened to me?

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 2:46 pm
by dstovall-p40
AdrianLP wrote:If I said, "Ok, nobody listen to what I'm about to say" in public, and then began to speak, could I blame others for stealing if they listened to me?


No you could not, but you are taking no precautions against them hearing. You are not scrambling your signal so it can only be received with your equipment, and you have not patented the means by which they can receive the information. The difference with the satellite example is the steps taken to protect the information. It would not be stealing if they sent the information over normal radio waves or normal TV transmissions where any standard receiver can receive it. With the satellite example you are taking measures to circumvent their protections.

Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 3:05 pm
by AdrianLP-p40
dstovall wrote:No you could not, but you are taking no precautions against them hearing. You are not scrambling your signal so it can only be received with your equipment, and you have not patented the means by which they can receive the information. The difference with the satellite example is the steps taken to protect the information. It would not be stealing if they sent the information over normal radio waves or normal TV transmissions where any standard receiver can receive it. With the satellite example you are taking measures to circumvent their protections.


So if I spoke in piglatin I could assume that I could charge others if they understood it? Piglatin is a form of encryption on data.

As for the satellite example, you're suggesting the crime is know-how?

Its like releasing a puzzle book with the hopes that nobody will solve them, and then charging people who solve the puzzles :)


Adrian