Message 00533 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00475 Message: 15/30 L6 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

[ox-en] (Im)material (was: Value of software)

Hi Graham!

On Tuesday 11 June 2002 01:16, Graham Seaman wrote:
You seem to be saying that software has a special, immaterial
form, which distinguishes it from other goods. I am saying
that there is nothing special about it in this way: all goods
have a design (the 'immaterial' part), and a physical

Hooray! Now I'm not alone on this list, anymore. Thank RMS! :o) 

So, the material instances of a piece of software are the RAM 
chips, hard drives, CDs, tapes, papers and brains that 
constitute a "copy" of it.

The design, however, is an abstraction of the properties, shared 
by all of the material instances. As both, a CD copy of M$ 
Bullshit 1.0 and a paper copy of M$ Bullshit 1.0 start with the 
sentence "Satan wants you", the abstract "M$ bullshit 1.0" also 
starts with this sequence of characters.

IMHO, this is very clear in English:

"I've just bought a copy of M$ Bullshit 1.0" refers to one 
material instance that has changed its owner in regard to 
material property, while "I've just installed M$ Bullshit 1.0" 
refers to the abstract form. It is irrelevant which copy was 
used. There has been at least one copy involved, but it could 
have been any.

In German, one usually would say, "I've just bought M$ Bullshit 
1.0" to indicate that a copy has been bought, which is quite 
confusing, because literally read, it means that the abstract 
thing "M$ Bullshit 1.0" has been sold, which is the intellectual 
property of M$, and they certainly won't sell it.



Thread: oxenT00475 Message: 15/30 L6 [In index]
Message 00533 [Homepage] [Navigation]