[Coco] CoCo Wireless RS-232 Pak

[Jeff Teunissen]

Boisy Pitre wrote:
> On Mar 18, 2009, at 8:48 PM, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
> 
>> Boisy Pitre wrote:
>>> On Mar 18, 2009, at 2:42 PM, Jeff Teunissen wrote:
>>>
>>>> Boisy Pitre wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> I have to believe that you are well aware that giving away your
>>>>> CoCoNet software would directly undermine sales of DriveWire.
>>>>
>>>> So would selling it. What's the difference?
>>>
>>> Before I decided to give DriveWire away there was a difference.  Now,
>>> there is no difference, so the point is moot.
>>>
>>> This horse has been beat, so to quote Ben Kenobi, "There's nothing to
>>> see here... move along."
>>
>> Sorry, I had not read the announcement that it had joined NitrOS-9.
>>
>> Still though, I wouldn't think the existence of a for-sale product  
>> performing
>> a similar function should preclude someone from doing something nice  
>> for the
>> community by releasing their own work freely (even if it's done with
>> self-serving motives, like selling hardware).
> 
> Be careful... you are poking the embers, and the fire is likely to  
> start up again.
> 
> You may feel differently if you had invested time into making a  
> product that someone else would potentially undercut by giving their  
> work away, especially when you were misled by that individual.  I gave  
> reasons why I saw it as I did, and I made it clear that it was a dirty  
> thing to do.

Having just read the other two or three threads in which this was hashed out
(I hadn't read the rest of it), I apologize for apparently resurrecting the
issue. I've been on both sides at various times in the past, and understand
both points of view, though I can't say I have any sympathy for *either* POV
these days.

Even though it irritates me when someone clones my programs (even more so when
it's done in a way that infringes my copyright, as happened not too long ago),
I don't expect it to stop happening. Likewise, someone _else's_ irritation
would not stop me from writing a replacement for a program (and then releasing
the result as GPL), especially if that program were proprietary: if it's not
source, it's not software.

Maybe that makes me an asshole, but I'm OK with that. Apparently you're OK
with it as well, since your response to Roger's statement that his software
MIGHT be free was to screw him before he had the chance to screw you...bravo.
But hey, since you one-upped him I now don't have to make my own GPLed
DriveWire-compatible client/server from the specs like I had been planning to
do about six months from now. However, since I couldn't care less about DECB
or Windows, the regular server and HDB-DOS parts of the product would have
been completely safe from me.

Hey, at least I'm honest about it.