Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
Hi Andrew, On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 AndrewWatt2000@a... wrote: > Implicitly, it seems to me that by putting "our" data into a data container > which belongs to Microsoft (as it happens to be in this case) we are creating > what I (provocatively?) might term "jointly owned data". The data, held in > Microsoft format, has more value (to us, to our customers) than raw data. With the greatest of respect, this is possibly quite the most ridiculous suggestion I've heard in a long, long time! Consider: if I buy a spade from GardenCo to dig my garden because the spade is more effective than using my bare hands, am I implicitly entering into a "jointly owned" relationship with GardenCo, who now have some notional ownership over the freshly dug soil? I don't think so. So, then, why should the data I create with a tool bought from Microsoft belong at least partly to them? If GardenCo were to claim some ownership over my plot of land, we would call them crooks and thieves, and say that they are overreaching the limit of a simple contract. (The same is true even if I only borrowed or leased the spade from them.) I fail to see why the same shouldn't be true of Microsoft software. They may obfuscate things, dress things up with fancy licensing agreements, claim that software is a totally different ball game to digging a garden, but at the end it boils down to one thing: a tool shouldn't place unfair constraints on the stuff you use it on. (Extend the analogy into just about any walk of life: I think it's only computing in which the vendors have managed to get away with this absurd notion, and it has quite clearly set the industry back and hindered development signficantly.) Andrew. -- Andrew Savory Email: andrew@l... Managing Director Tel: +44 (0)870 741 6658 Luminas Internet Applications Fax: +44 (0)700 598 1135 This is not an official statement or order. Web: www.luminas.co.uk
|
