Dennis Plunkett <dennis@RDD.NECA.NEC.COM.AU> wrote:
> Eric analogy is a bit flawed in the Toaster department, the written of the
> book would have been paid, in any which case there is nothing wrong. On the

Ah, but I deliberately stated that I borrowed the book from my friend.  The
line of reasoning that BillW proposed was that if I took apart something and
studied it, I hadn't paid to be educated.  Well, if I borrow the book I haven't
paid to be educated either.  The author sold one book to my friend, but he
hasn't sold one to me.  Therefore, by BillW's reasoning I don't have the
right to learn from the book and build my own toaster.

This is, of course, exactly the sort of reasoning that publishers have tried
to advance on multiple occassions in the past in attempt to ban libraries or
at least put serious restrictions on them.  Congress hasn't been dumb enough
to fall for it, at least in the case of books.  In the case of software,
Congress did make lending and rental illegal, except in the case of game
cartridges.  Quite ironic, since Nintendo was one of the companies trying to
get the law passed.  I have no idea why game cartridges should be treated
differently than any other software.  However, I also don't understand why
software should be treated differently than books.  If I'm allowed to lend
or rent you a book I've purchased, why shouldn't I be allowed to lend or rent
you a software package I've purchased?  Of course, I'm not allowed to keep
a photocopy of the book while I lend it to you, and neither should I be
allowed to keep a copy of the software (in memory, on my hard disk, on
CD-ROM, or whereever) while I lend it out.

I probably could find a use for a PIC in a toaster.  I wouldn't want to make
the toaster too smart, however.  Red Dwarf fans have seen the result of that
mistake.  :-)

Cheers,
Eric