"F>> from the quill of "Roger B.A. Klorese" <rogerk @
ORG> on scroll
"F>> <3 .
"F>> > Whether or not you agree with it, the logic is: you are LICENSING (not
"F>> > purchasing) tools for the accomplishment of benefit to you. The
"F>> > licensor has the right to derive more benefit when the licensor does.
"F>> Because I bought a bigger machine (had to pay for the extra resource),
"F>> capable of doing more/bigger lists that somehow reflects on how much more
"F>> the software has delivered me. The software is doing exaclty what it was
"F>> when I had 3 lists, my hardware just got bigger and able to handle more
"F>Scaling up isn't always simply a matter of purchasing more powerful
"F>hardware. Sometimes improved algorithms are needed. And I don't
"F>think it makes sense to expect a software developer to implement
"F>two versions of a product just so a less functional one can be
"F>sold for less.
But that's not the question. You have two different customers, buying
exactly the same product. One is paying less money. The other is
paying more money for the same product, -because- they also paid more
money for hardware, more money for connections to the Net, and so on.
But the product is -exactly- the same. Why should the customer who more
heavily uses the product subsidise the smaller user?
If the product is worth X, why is a person who fully utilizes the
product paying Y?
X SLMR 2.1a X No sense being pessimistic. It wouldn't work anyway.
>> David B. Smith Email sysop @
com, dbsmith @
>> Sysop, American Tune BBS "The cure for all the ills of Democracy
>> is more Democracy!" -- NY Gov. Al Smith
>> My views are sometimes not even my own, much less anyone else's.
>> My employers don't necessarily speak for me, either, 'natch.
From: "Brian J. Murrell" <brian @