Re: [Pan-users] Re: OT: freedomware vs... Was: Building Pan on Windows?

[Leslie Newell]

> > Alternatively it is perfectly legal to borrow a Windows CD from
> > someone and install it. 
> >     
>
> Only if they delete their Windows install first.
>   

As far as I know you can use it legally without uninstalling their 
version first, as long as you do either delete it or install a kosher 
copy after the evaluation period is up..


> > Most applications that handle data that can sensibly be edited in
> > another application at least offer an option to export the data in a
> > relatively common format. 
> >     
>
> And how does that help you when you no longer have a computer which can 
> run the application?
>   

It doesn't. However these days with virtual machines and emulators, as 
long as you can still physically read the application files you can 
probably run it. For example if I wanted to, I could dig out some old 
Sinclair Spectrum cassettes and a cassette player and load them into a 
PC based Spectrum emulator through the sound card. In case you have 
never heard of it, the Spectrum was an early 1980s home computer based 
on an 8 bit Z80 processor. Emulators are freely available on the Internet.

> That's nonsense. That's like saying that "many nails only make sense if 
> hammered by Brand X of hammer", or "many slices of bread only make 
> sense if toasted in Acme Brand toasters".
>
> Let's suppose you have a really narrowly-focused niche application: CAD 
> for designing ergonomic cheese-graters. Your CAD application has all 
> sorts of fancy customized data that only makes sense for 
> cheese-graters, and other CAD apps can't use it because they don't 
> understand cheese-graters. Okay, I get that, your app exists in a tiny 
> little niche.
>
> Why can't there be other cheese-grater CAD applications? Some day your 
> application will no longer be supported, the hardware it runs on will 
> no longer exist, but cheese-graters will still exist and people will 
> still want to read the old CAD files.
>   

But would the author of Cheese Grater Mk2 want to go to the hassle of 
loading your data? The data structures would undoubtedly not be directly 
compatible. CG Mk2 would have functions that CG MK1 didn't and vice-versa.

> I'm sure you have your reasons for wanting to keep the data format 
> proprietary. That just makes you part of the problem *wink*
>   

Actually the part of my data format that would be useful to others is 
fairly open. It is in Windows ini format so it is pretty easy to work 
with. The raw object outlines and cut information is binary and is not 
documented. I have to admit one of the reasons is simple laziness. I 
don't want the hassle of writing documentation and supporting the one or 
maybe two users who would want to use it.

> I have thousands of files on 800K Macintosh floppy disks, and since I'm 
> very aware of how unreliable floppies are, I have two or three backups 
> of each. Unfortunately, I have no floppy disk drive capable of reading 
> them, no Mac capable of executing the applications on them, and even if 
> I did, no way of networking such a Mac with my main computer or the 
> Internet.
>   

Here you are talking about physical compatibility. There isn't much you 
can do about that. Let's face it even carved stone tablets don't last 
forever. There are plenty out there written in lost languages that 
no-one can read.

Les