[Asterisk-biz] A question about ethics, I suppose

[steve szmidt]

On Thursday 26 May 2005 13:39, Paul wrote:
> Joey Kelly wrote:
> >On Monday May 23 2005 19:04, Michael Giagnocavo spake:
> >>Even better is leaving a "secret" backdoor, that they AGREE to. Sure, if
> >>they hire good enough people they can disable it. But at least it gives
> >> you some level of security.
> >
> >This is a BAD IDEA. We're quick to complain about security holes in
> > others' software, aren't we? A secret back door won't remain secret for
> > long.
>
> Ask a lawyer about it. The basic concept is that if you sell something
> and then disable it, that can be considered a form of repossession. It's
> better that they have continual possession and use of the goods because
> that helps reinforce the validity of the debt.

You ensure that the sale is only consummated once thay pay. 

> However, renting hardware and software gives you some flexibility. I
> suppose you could write a type of rent-to-own contract. I have known of
> situations where this was done with custom software. Binaries with
> limited run life were rented until the customer paid to own the product
> with source code.

Licensed use is better in my experience. 

-- 

Steve Szmidt

"They that would give up essential liberty for temporary safety 
deserve neither liberty nor safety."
                                Benjamin Franklin