"Volker Hetzer" <volker.hetzer / ieee.org> wrote in message news:<c7fl8s$bjo$1 / nntp.fujitsu-siemens.com>...

> "Quirk" <quirk / syntac.net> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:4e20d3f.0405070046.50c2d5dd / posting.google.com...

> > > That's not true. 

> > Yes it is.

> What was the value of this reply?

What was the value of yours? Or this latest one?

> > > The main problem is not the right to the source code
> > > but the right to get maintenance.
> > 
> > With out the right to modify the source code you can have no "right to
> > maintenenence" as all rights are held by one vendor, exactly the sort
> > of dependency I recomond avoiding.

> I do have the right to maintenance, because that's in the contract. Very 
> simple.

Yes, you have the right to be overcharged for work that may or may not
not suit your needs by only _one_ vendor, and no right to go elsewhere
when they fail, ignore you outright, stop supporting your application
or vanish from the face of the earth. Have you actually read your
contract or software licence? It only protects the vendor, not you.

> > > The right to modify is a red herring.
> > 
> > Not if your application and the permenancy of your data is important.

> You didn't read my posting, right? 

You are one funny guy. Really. I'll bet you're the first guy in usenet
to ever ask this question rhetoricly.

> I don't *want* to create my own development
> team competing with the original one. I don't want to merge my change back 
> into their code with every new release! I don't want to develop code and
> then have them decide whether they condescend to incorporate it or not! I 
> want the authors of the software to do the coding based on what I'm willing 
> to pay for!

You are dependent on their licence because you built your own
application on top of a platform for which you have no source code,
and no right to modify, you then also have no leverage with the vendor
of the orginal software.

You have no rights at all, wether or not you are willing to pay.

> Elegant coding... The holy grail of software engineering. Why am I 
> spontaneusly reminded of http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/
> dilbert-20040417.html ?

I dunno, because you're culturaly issolated and have a poor
imagination?

> For db computing, reducing server load is the important thing. 

No, it is not, in most cases CPU is not the most limited resource.

> Interoperability
> typically means primitive, network/db intensive sql.

No, interoperability means abilty to integrate applications in a
heterogeneus environment. It means standards and flexibilty.

> > > If it's important it must not matter whether one tries to
> > > access the data from a local or remote machine.

> > Interesting that you believe that this can not be accomblished with
> > network security.

> Yes. Now you figure out why.

Because you don't know what you are doing maybe? Oh wait, you don't
need to, after all, you have decided to pay a vendor to know for you,
I remember now.

> > Yes, a securely configured database, protected by a secure network,
> > the later being far more important!

> A network will alway have holes, simply because legitimate users
> have to get through and legitimacy can change while they are in.
> Therefore you protect the data where they are. In the db.

If your network has holes, then your database is insecure, because I
can get right at the filesystem blobs, the reverse however is not
true.

> > What is it about "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human Readable"
> > that you do not understand?

> The fact that you believe such a thing exists. Unless you mean a printout
> of the database contents.

What is it about "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human Readable"
that you do not understand?

> > > In any case, permanency across more than two major database or other
> > > software releases is difficult, regardless of the format.

> > For unskilled labour, yes.

> Right. You show me how do convert VENUS chip designs into Synopsys
> without going into a museom for the original hardware and getting all
> the versions in between.

What does this have to do with "Self Contained, Self Describing, Human
Readable" files that can be read on any system past or present?
 
> > That is why vendor educated developers who
> > can not see passed their favourite commercial product should not be
> > asked for advice on this subject.

> Get some real world experience.

Wow. Not only a comedian, but also a master logician.
What a compelling argument, tell me, how much do you know about my
experience, and why do you feel that talking about _me_ is a response
to my argument?

> > If you have the source code, you are the developer,

> Wrong. I am the user, t.

Oh, well then I guess we have nothing further to discuss, my comments
here where meant for actual developers.

> > if you contract an
> > outside developer or licence an existing product, fine, as long as you
> > have perpetual access to the source code and the *right* to modify it,
> > or contract someone else to. If you do not, than you can not gaurantee
> > the permenance of your application.

> When will you get it, I don't *need* the right to modify it as long as I
> have the right to have it modified by the guys who wrote it in the first plac
> and are competent at it.
You have no such right, ever, the only right you _can_ have is the
right to modify it yourself or contract someone to do it. Please read
your licence.

Cheers.