It's not interfering with your hardware or cpu cycles in any way.
Not letting you do as you see fit with your hardware or cpu cycles is interfering.
I don't like it either.
But as I said, it's his app to do with what he wants.
He may have written it, but once a copy is on your machine, that copy is yours, not his. You seem to feel he still somehow has ownership of it after it's changed hands, and I find that very odd.
Agreed in this case. It is free software, so placing an expiration date on it is silly.
But I do a lot of things others call silly, so I can respect his right to behave in a silly fashion without getting upset at him for it.
No question he is limiting the appeal of his software by behaving thus.
If we disagree, it is not here; it is with the notion that you don't have the right to override his silliness on your own machine.
If a furniture maker deliberately made wobbly chairs, that would be silly. If someone bought one of those chairs but didn't fix the wobble, and furthermore didn't tell anyone else how to fix the wobble, because of a belief that somehow they didn't have the right to fix the wobble because "they're his chairs and he has a right to be silly", I would consider
that silly, too. I say he has a right to make his chairs wobbly and his customers have a right to make any one of these chairs un-wobbly after taking ownership of it. We have the right to modify our property in ways that don't harm others (make a fire hazard, etc.). That's what it means for something to be "our property". Our chairs, our computers, our (copies of) software, etc.
I see a contradiction here - on one hand you say it's his mistake to make, but on the other hand you see nothing wrong with hacking the software to violate his right to make such mistakes?
You make it sound like I was advocating breaking into Duncan's computer and changing the source code or something! I'm only talking about fixing
your copy and helping other fix
their copies. Like fixing those wobbly chairs you bought, not breaking into the factory and fiddling with the machines to cause them to build the chairs differently.
I never heard Hacking called Jailbreaking before, but hacking is hacking.
Modifying your own computer and the software running on your own computer is not "hacking" in the colloquial, pejorative sense of that term. It's very different from breaking into somebody else's computer and messing with their stuff.
If you are going to do so, it's best to have the permission of the software owner/creator first.
?!
I don't need permission from the construction company to build an extension to my house. I don't need permission from the manufacturer to fix a wobbly chair. I don't need permission from GM to rotate the tires on my car. I don't need permission from Schwinn to repaint my bicycle. I don't need permission from HP to put another gigabyte of RAM in my computer. Why should I need permission from Duncan to alter my copy of some software he wrote?
Remember - you do NOT own such software.
Sure you do. It's your copy to do with as you please. What do you think it is, a rental or something? The only reason you can't modify something you rented, normally, is because if you modify it you modify it for everyone and not just you. Like, if you rent a video and scratch the dvd, the scratch will make it skip for everyone who rents that particular dvd after you. If you rent a snowblower and replace some parts, you've changed that snowblower for everyone who rents that particular snowblower after you. But your copy of some software is yours; if you change it you can't f&@! it up for anybody else the way you can if you fiddle with a borrowed dvd or a rented snowblower.
Your statements sound like an endorsement of illegal hacking.
Please do not endorse illegal activity on this forum
I endorsed doing as you please with your own computer and whatever you have on it,
not breaking into someone else's computer and messing with their stuff on it without their permission.
I think the distinction is pretty clear here.
My machine -- my stuff. Someone else changing it around on me without asking -- bad. Me changing it around -- not bad. Someone else trying to stop me changing it around -- just as bad as someone else changing it around on me without asking.
Dude, you're coming on awfully strong and sanctimonious.
Pardon me, but when people suggest I don't have the right to do as I please with my own computer hardware it bothers me a bit.
How about you tone things down a bit, and stop slinging mud.
Who's slinging mud? I suggested that certain behaviors were a mistake, but didn't accuse anyone of anything worse than possibly having slightly poor judgment or engaging in short-term thinking. I certainly haven't accused anybody of acting in bad faith. Your use of the phrase "slinging mud" on the other hand edges close to being such behavior itself.
While I am still developing the app, it is very useful to be able to retire old versions. I have made a number of changes that are not compatible with older versions. (For example, the app allows you to generate a custom URL that launches the app and recreates a plot. I've changed the URL format several times in ways that older versions would not understand. Newer versions understand old-format URLs, but old versions do not understand new-format URLs)
That may be convenient for you, from a support perspective, but it's at the expense of your users' freedom, including their right to skip a version with a known bug or problem and wait for the next one among other things.
It's very much Apple's sort of design philosophy and it rubs quite a lot of people, besides me, the wrong way. Users being nannied and told what to do instead of being allowed to do things that maybe the company/author/whatever thinks are bad ideas and learn from their own mistakes.
Software is usually licensed, not purchased. When you buy most software, you don't actually buy the software at all. Instead, you buy a license to use the software. The copyright owner still retains ownership of that software, and you agree to an end user license agreement (EULA) as part of purchasing a license to run it. If you don't like those terms, you are free to NOT buy products that use those terms. If you purchase software (and therefore agree to the EULA) you are bound to follow it's terms, and breaking those terms is a breach of contract, subject to civil and possibly criminal action. Again, if you don't like it, don't buy it. Vote with your wallet.
That's a legal theory used by the likes of Microsoft to try to impose restrictions above and beyond what copyright law actually allows. It is also, if you'll pardon my bluntness, a crock. If you get a shrinkwrapped box of Microsoft Office at the store, take it to checkout, pay, and leave with it, that's a purchase, not a "rental" or a "licensing". You own those copies, just as you own books or movies you buy at the book store or video store. Copyright law says you can't just make copies and sell them yourself and stuff like that -- however you can use your copy as you see fit and to resell it when you're done with it.
When you go to use it, it will generally pop up some box purporting to take away some of your property rights in your copy, but that's a far cry from actually signing a contract with Microsoft. Not only is there no meeting of the minds, you don't even get anything for "agreeing". According to Title 17 Section 117(a):
It is not an infringement for the owner of a copy of a computer program to make
or authorize the making of another copy or adaptation of that computer program
provided:
(1) that such a new copy or adaptation is created as an essential step in the
utilization of the computer program in conjunction with a machine and
that it is used in no other manner, or
(2) that such new copy or adaptation is for archival purposes only and that
all archival copies are destroyed in the event that continued possession
of the computer program should cease to be rightful.
Translated from legalese into English, that means you don't need Microsoft's permission to install Office and run it (though both acts make copies) because these copies are created "as an essential step in the utilization of the computer program". Which means the thing you're supposedly getting (Microsoft's permission) in exchange for "signing" away your property rights in that copy of Office is worthless. Which makes the "contract" one-sided (as well as unsigned, unwitnessed, and so forth).
The second subclause lets you back up your computer/the install discs/whatever, so long as you don't keep those if you resell your used copy.
Long story short, there's nothing remotely resembling a real contract being negotiated and signed here, so it's not a breach of contract to break Microsoft's various "terms and conditions". It's your copy on your computer to do with as you please, just as you can scribble margin notes in a book you buy (no copyright violation here) or rip out pages, or use a dvd you bought as a coaster or to prop up a slightly short table leg to stop the thing from wobbling.
I am a software developer by profession. I take intellectual property rights very seriously. It is how I earn my livelihood.
I very much doubt that, actually. When was the last time you got a royalty statement? Thought so. You earn a salary like most software developers.
"Jailbreaking" an app is a breach of contract.
It can't be, when there's no contract to breach.
It's illegal
No, it's not. It's no more illegal than buying and then defacing a book or a dvd. Your copy, yours to mess with as you see fit. Distributing copies of it yourself would be copyright infringement but that's a different matter. And both breach of contract and copyright infringement are normally civil, not criminal, matters anyway.
and wrong.
It's no more morally wrong than ripping a page out of a book you bought. It may be contrary to the author's wishes, and he may be unhappy to hear of people treating his beloved novel that way, but it is not
wrong.
It is different than unlocking a device so that you can install software on it that you are legally entitled to own, as the US courts have recently decided
It's no different. My stuff to do with as I please. My machine. My book. My disc. My chair. My table. My car. My bike. My copy of a piece of software. In some cases it would infringe an intellectual property right if I were to make copies for other people, but those laws do not extend to limiting what I can do with my own copies in private, and for a very good reason: if they did they would undermine, rather than work together with, normal property rights. In fact they contain explicit exemptions, like the aforementioned Title 17 Section 117(a), to reaffirm what should be common sense anyway, which is that your own copies are yours to do with as you see fit within your own private domain.
I happen to agree with your objections about Apple's restrictive distribution of apps for their mobile platforms.
And yet you act the same way? That's troubling. You don't like it when the hardware vendor restricts you, but you're all too happy to do the same kind of thing to the people on the next rung down -- the users of the software you write. Can you not see the symmetry here? In fact there's four levels here; above Apple are the cellular carriers and they often try to bully handset manufacturers into limiting the capabilities of the phones, to try to force the users to use expensive data services instead of, say, USB or bluetooth connections to get their photos off their phone. Apple has the clout to make handsets that allow easy data portability, but they try to impose their own restrictions on users and developers. And then developers like you chafe at Apple's restrictions but try to layer on
another set of 'em for the end user. It'd be funny if it weren't so sad.
When I buy a computer, (and these mobile devices are very definitely computers) I expect to be able to create/buy, install, and run any software I want on that computer, from any legal source. I resent Apple making themselves the sole arbiter of what software I can run on my computer.
When I buy software, I expect to be able to use it as I see fit, and modify it to better suit my use for it, in any way that does not infringe copyright. I resent software developers (particularly Microsoft) trying to make themselves the sole arbiter of what functionality I can use, when, how often, and under what circumstances in
my copy of e.g. Office.
The law gives them the right to say I can't go around making and selling copies, and things like that, but that's it. Nowhere in it are they granted control over private use of a copy. They try to claim you need their permission to make a copy to install it, and then condition that permission on accepting a burdensome "contract" full of extra restrictions including restrictions on private use, but the fact is that the law explicitly permits making the private copies of software that are needed for its installation and use, AND making private backup copies, so I do not need Microsoft's permission to make these copies and do not therefore feel bound by their so-called "contract", legally or morally.
There are many good things about Apple's hardware and software, but if they ever try to move this policy to their "real" computers (desktops and laptops) I will abandon Apple and not look back. I'll take my business elsewhere.
They're moving slowly in the opposite direction, if anything. I heard somewhere that Apple used to behave just as badly with Mac software and Mac developers as they now do with the iPhone app store, and gradually relented. History will hopefully repeat itself with the app store.
As for you, I don't see what harm it really does you if you stop trying to force restrictions on your users' use of the software you write.
- You can just tell them that older versions than the current one are not officially supported. Then ignore pleas for help from users with outdated versions, except to suggest they upgrade. Then you avoid the support headaches you fear if people are not all using the same version.
- As for if you later want to sell copies, if free copies of version 0.6 beta are a serious competitor to $19.99 copies of version 4.1 with three times as many features, then begging your pardon but version 4.1 f&@!ing blows and isn't worth the price tag. In other words, if 4.1 is genuinely a vast improvement over 0.6 beta then you needn't fear; and if it's not, then you're really charging people $19.99 not to brick their existing, good-enough-for-them copy rather than charging people $19.99 for a vastly improved version. The latter is asking payment for goods; the former is extortion, just as surely as if you went around telling people "Nice copy you have there, it'd be a shame if something were to happen to it" in your best gangster-imitation voice and costume.
- And with that in mind, which would you buy from, a chairmaker whose older, cheaper chairs have flooded the market who sells a more expensive, vastly better chair, or a chairmaker who occasionally charges all his old customers twenty bucks not to bust into their home and take an axe to the chair they'd already bought a while back, in order to then try to sell them the new, more expensive one? I can tell you one of these businesses focuses on providing value and is likely to be liked by customers; the other focuses on trying to squeeze money out of anyone it can is is likely to get a very nasty reputation, even if they claim some contractual fine-print makes their extortion-like tactics legal and even moral. Microsoft, without quite going to that extreme, has gotten a notoriously bad reputation for greed by behaving in similar ways, trying to corral and control their customers instead of focusing on providing value. You have a choice as to which kind you want to be, a company like Sun or Red Hat with a mostly good reputation for providing value or a company like Microsoft or Apple with a tarnished reputation for focusing more on corralling and controlling people in order to squeeze money out of them in preference to using a good value proposition to part them from their money.
No offense is intended with any of the above, by the way -- just advice offered in good faith, plus a rebuttal of the more dubious legal and moral arguments for why we shouldn't modify our own stuff.
If you can offer cogent and lucid counterarguments, by all means, go ahead, but anyone responding with namecalling or other uncivil behavior will not change my mind about anything (except, possibly, I'll revise my opinion of them downward). So no flames, please. I feel I have tried to avoid flaming, while stating the facts and making my arguments calling them as I see them (and maybe being a bit blunt at times); I ask that others try to avoid flaming also.