Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/03/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I don't disagree with you that there is a moral issue involved, but I also believe there is a moral issue with "shrink wrap licensing", and with Microsoft charging large sums for programs that have become de facto standards because of Microsoft's "urging". I don't own Photoshop because I won't pay $600 for it, and I'm uncomfortable using a purloined copy. Still, there is something obscene about Adobe charging the amount they do--unmitigated greed. I'm not much of a capitalist, I suppose. How do dogs enter into this, you ask. Well, now that I'm asked face-on, I'm hard pressed to think of an answer. Allan Eric wrote: > Allan: > >> It's wrong, but less wrong to one who is poor than to one who can >> support dual Elkhounds. I'd go easy on the judging. > > Actually, I only have one Elkhound. We rescued him from the pound. The > other is a German Shepherd that we bought--not stole--from a local, > reputable breeder. > > I'm not judging. Stating facts as far as I'm aware. Theft is theft by > any > other name. Trying to raise awareness. If I've made any of this > personal, > I apologize. I don't believe I've done so. I'm not sure how the > number of > dogs I own has anything to do with underpaying for a software license, > though. :) - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html