Survey posted 2004-09-18 21:29 by Morgan.

Contribute ideas to surveys by sending a mail to survey@ticalc.org.

Also, I don't think that anyone who's a member here is going to choose the "I had to pay" option. :-)

One did, apparently.

*Hides* Oh...calculators.

That was so wrong...

Took me a minute to get that. Bravo. *golf clap*

I <i> still </i> don't get it... :/

Count yourself lucky you don't get it, you really don't want to.

Think...

He had to pay for <i><b> it </b></i>...

P.S. Is there another way to do that??? I mean the <i><b> ... </i></b>.

120d//!!! Oh, I get it...

Yeah, I had to think about it for a second as well. 120d, that was pretty funny :-D

*GASP* GET HIM!!!!!

Now 2...

If I sell some one else's game should I pay royalties even if the author doesn't want payment?

No...

Sure, but you can send the money to me, and I'll make sure it gets to the author. >:->

Pick a charity

I will ocasionally charge something, for sending a prgm that is mine and is/was a product of hard work. I only will do this to people who I know will pay, however

Some retards in my algebra class tried to charge money for sharing a pythagorean program and a quadratic program... I then happily gave mine to the other kids for free and made sure that the ones charging money knew how rude that was. It's pretty pathetic for simple programs like those, not to mention illegal :D Anyway... I've never been offered, and I'm sure if I was I would decline. I'm just not that kind of person.

It's not illegal to sell things, as long as you own what you're selling, the possession of the item is legal, and you provide what you say you are going to. You could sell a scrap of paper for $1500 as long as you said that it was a scrap of paper, that you would be charging $1500, that you didn't steal it, and that you didn't add or subtract anything (for example you can't lie about whether it is toilet paper or 20 lb xerox paper).

You acted irresponsibly, in my view, by permanently closing that source of revenue for everyone, even if the program in question merits purchase. I agree that charging for a quadform clone is dumb, but don't condemn the programming profession, which is the effect of what I think you did.

??? "but don't condemn the programming profession"
These kids did not make the program. They downloaded it. I would never condemn the programming profession. I highly respect it and one day hope to make it mine. I condemn the fact that they charged money for that which they did not own, the program written by someone else. Thus it was not so legal, and was no irrisponsible on my part.

It would only be something that they didn't own if the readme says the the program is licensed, not sold. Plus, if you think about it, they're just retailing. Nothing wrong with that.

What I was saying was that you have created the precedent that software should be free, and that it somehow is rude to sell it. Thus, if you try to act in a professional context (make the program, market it, sell it, use the money to do other things such as R&D) they will think that *you're* 'rude' and they will go to someone who will make it for them for free. They will then distribute it for free. This undermines professional programming because with the use of profesionals comes extra costs that basement tinkerers can absorb. Guess whose work gets used.

You need a copyright license for redistributing software (or any copyrighted work). Granted, most of the software here on ticalc is implicitly licensed for free redistribution (and I doubt anyone will go after someone legally for redistributing their program).

Think of it this way: is it legal (I won't get into right/wrong here) to sell the text of a book (one you didn't write) to different people without license? How about selling music without license? They're both examples of copyright infringement and as such are illegal. It's not just retailing (I suppose it is "retailing", but it's illegal in this case).

Iff breaking the law is wrong, then selling works without the copyright holder's permission is wrong.

Firstly, civil disobediance is technically lawbreaking but is generally not condemned. For example, Nelson Mandela is not villified as an international criminal.

I am using your argument. People can resell free software that they got off ticalc.org unless the readme says they can't, in which case they can't. What do you not agree with here? Are you being an oppositionalist, or am I not getting some subtle nuance of your argument?

Of course it's wrong to steal things. That includes copyrighted works. I have been saying this. However, let me repeat, it is not theft to give someone something that you got as an unconditional gift, which is essentially what ticalc.org is. It is not necessarily prudent, for obvious economic reasons which I will not repeat for the fourth time unless requested, but it is not illegal and is most certaily not wrong.

I would like to compare this to something else. Let's say you receive a handmade gift card. A friend thinks that it is the best that they have ever seen and requests a xerox copy. However, xeroxing costs a nickel. Is it theft to accept a nickel from your friend for xeroxing?

I guess I wasn't completely clear. I'll expand my point and see where our disagreement lies.

I do agree with your second and mostly with your third paragraph, but it applies in the context of a community site like ticalc. Programs are generally assumed to be free unless stated otherwise (in a readme or whatnot). That's a norm here. Probably most people here don't understand or care about copyright and licenses, so they accept that their programs are free by default (I doubt that "free by default" is recognised legally even where it is expected). Those who choose to license their programs can and do, and they have full legal rights to do so under copyright law. Do you agree with me so far?

In a different context, where "free by default" is not expected and is not the norm, one must have a license if she wants to redistribute a work which is not hers (excluding public domain works). (I'm sure you agree on this).

In my understanding, a copyright license grants rights beyond what is given by copyright; that which takes away some rights (given acceptance of it) would be a contract. A EULA is a contract (you may have stated this already, so I'm just restating it).

I always use a license for all of my works here so that it's not ambiguous, even for just a "use it however you want" type of license. That way, those ten people who would download my stuff know exactly what rights they have, and the two people who might need to use those rights won't have to ask me. :) I wished more people would use a license for their assembly routines. I'm good enough at Z80 programming that I can write my own (sometimes better) routines, so that's not much of a problem for me now for the most part.

>>In my understanding, a copyright license grants rights beyond what is given by copyright; that which takes away some rights (given acceptance of it) would be a contract.

I was referring to mutually binding written agreements in general when saying 'contract.' Obviously, a gift isn't unconditional when it has conditions. I was saying that if copying was allowed (i.e., specifically not disallowed) that it is legal to do it. In most circumstances (here at least) it is defensible, then, to do so, and charge money, because that isn't specifically disallowed. I draw the line at Linux &Co, however.

Let me make clear, though, that what I meant by copying was not necessarily unlimited distribution of everything. I think you know what I meant, though.

How do you mean you draw the line at Linux "& Co"? I really don't understand what you mean by that (I'm not being defensive or anything).

That meant that if you have something that is currently not free, you shouldn't give it away to undermine professionals and companies. I think that it is defensible to give away demos, simple programs, and source to help new programmers and people who know less than you do, but it is not defensible to give away general distribution programs, complex programs, and applied programs, which are sold to pay professional programmers and are not in any way a tutorial but are applied to people's lives, taking a large chunk out of companies' market share and slowing cash flow.

What the heck d00d? My statement did not cover hardly anything you guys are talking about. I was not talking about the business world, professional programmers, licenses, or any of that. As to whether or not it's legal: I don't care. As a matter of fact I will officially retract my statement "...not to mention illegal." My point was that for a program so simple, that everyone in my class needed to participate (our teacher used the program in lectures), it was "rude" to charge money to distribute the program out to the class. And ok, if not "rude", then dishonorable, trying to make a quick buck off all these kids who weren't familiar with the calculators. I was explaining a scenario in which no programmers are being ripped off because their program was copied freely, nor where a business company lost profits due to file sharing. I was simply explaining how some kids in my class did what they did and I helped out the little guy. If this makes me a bad person cause I interrupted extra income from these already rich kids who had no explicit rights to make money here, then damn...

That action set the precedent that programs are free. Look at what is happening with Linux, which is not competition. It is not competition because Microsoft is being undermined by giveaways, not challenged. It's just basement tinkerers putting professionals out on the street because they're selling below cost.

If the basement tinkerers want to give away their programs for free, and Microsoft loses because of that, then whatever. Microsoft loses. End of the world. It's the creators' choice, and the users' choice. And my action sets no precedent that programs are free. It simply states that MY program was free, not ALL programs. If I made a real game, not for my 89, for PC, and it was a real game, I would charge money for it. If I made a real-life utility with expensive software for the real business world, I would charge money. If I make a quadratic equation solving program for my TI-89 graphing calculator, with free software, I will NOT allow anyone to charge money for it. There is a big difference here. I'm really not seeing how you are possibly getting that my actions are setting a precedence that will put all the poor programmers in the world out of business. If anything, that's illegal file sharing and file sharing programs and file sharers that are doing that, all those people you see on TV whining that kazaa got into so much trouble, that people have a right to transfer data freely and without restraint, which they do NOT, else companies like Microsoft WOULD go out of business... My free quad program, shoot even a TI-89 OS I might someday make, will never affect microsoft's share prices or profits. Besides, Microsoft isn't a "victim" of any of this. They are the one's forever trying to gain a greater advantage by monopolizing all PCs with their own OS, so maybe they deserve another loss.
Anyway, I'm just distressed about your comparison from my algebra class to the business/programming world because I'm not seeing a decent connection.

>>If the basement tinkerers want to give away their programs for free, and Microsoft loses because of that, then whatever. Microsoft loses.

Wrong. Professional programmers lose. Basement tinkerers giving away programs don't make money. This has the long-term effect of undermining, and thus wiping out, people who need to charge money for their products. Professionals can't compete with free giveaways.

How is the professional programming world connected to your algebra class? You said it was rude to sell a program. You made sure that was known. Now, those people think that they are entitled to free programs. When and if they find out about Linux they will make the same comparison.

Most of the math programs I use on my calculators took me less than 10 minutes to do, so I happily give them away...it's not like they're really difficult programs, just things for calculating hard-to-remember or long formulas.

I've actually made entire games based on people's requests before, and been offered money for it...but i've never accepted

also, when it comes to math programs, like the person before me said, it takes, like 45 seconds to make, so its no big deal. i am literally the only person at my school who knows how to program ti-games. people are always like: "Whoa, so like, you can make your own games?"

Man, I hate when people do that. That tends to get on my nerves. I just make them crappy games and stuff that looks too horrible for the human eye to see and make them leave me alone forever... haha.

You hate it when people want to draw on your expertise?

Well, I sorta like it, but for so many people, it gets aggrivating.