Re: [xml-dev] What should be open/free? (Was: Low-end Office 11 won't do
Lists Home |
Date Index |
In a message dated 13/04/2003 15:18:02 GMT Daylight Time, email@example.com writes:
On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 AndrewWatt2000@aol.com wrote:
> Implicitly, it seems to me that by putting "our" data into a data container
> which belongs to Microsoft (as it happens to be in this case) we are creating
> what I (provocatively?) might term "jointly owned data". The data, held in
> Microsoft format, has more value (to us, to our customers) than raw data.
With the greatest of respect, this is possibly quite the most ridiculous
suggestion I've heard in a long, long time!
You should get out and about more! <grin/> Listen to Tony Blair for example. :)
More seriously, I think our assumptions are different.
Consider: if I buy a spade from GardenCo to dig my garden because the
spade is more effective than using my bare hands, am I implicitly entering
into a "jointly owned" relationship with GardenCo, who now have some
notional ownership over the freshly dug soil?
I don't think so.
So, then, why should the data I create with a tool bought from Microsoft
belong at least partly to them?
I wasn't making the "joint ownership" point with a view to exploring this, but what do you imagine that you have ever "bought" from Microsoft? Or any other software "vendor"?
You may have licensed software from them. I am not aware of Microsoft ever having "sold" software.
So, with respect, your analogy of a spade (genuinely bought) breaks down.