Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Why Free Software?
Pantso:
quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
sadly, english is always going to have a problem defining the difference between liberation and zero-cost when it comes to talking about things that are 'free'.
--- End quote ---
I don't think that this is only a problem to those who speak English. In fact, I don't think that this is not a language-related problem at all. It only has to do with how open-minded people really are. :D
billy_gates:
quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
I will respond to all this with one question: If, someday in the future, we are able to cheaply replicate material objects such as computers and food and cars, do you think people should have the freedom to make copies of these things or not?
Considering the enormous benefits of such a technology, I think it would be disasterous not to do so. It is the same with digital technology.
[ April 24, 2003: Message edited by: Linux User #5225982375 ]
--- End quote ---
It depends on a lot of stuff. In essence I think we would need to create a way to truly limit the copying to legal copying only, with physical objects that would be easier than with software. If it takes money away from the developer, like you have 1 computer and you copy it 5 times, the developer just lost 5 pieces of revenue. If it was just for convenience though, like the food, yes. But none of this should be able to be given away or sold without money going to the original makers.
Calum:
if the software is licenced under the GPL then all copying is legal.
you still do not get it. software will be copied. deal with it. that's it.
there is NO WAY to limit copying.
and another thing:
there is NO WAY to limit copying.
i'll just say that agin, as it is IMPORTANT:
there is NO WAY to limit copying.
you can either waste your breath trying to stop copying and having these dumbassed "wars" against "pirates" (replete with golden earrings no doubt) or you can live in the real world where software licencing and copyrights take human beings' motivations and requirements into consideration.
which do you think is easier and best in the long run?
which do you think is best for those who are successful capitalists?
(hint, the answers to those two questions is not the same)
psyjax:
quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
if the software is licenced under the GPL then all copying is legal.
--- End quote ---
True. No one is arguing that. We are talking about software in general, and why some are so fevent that ALL of it be GPL.
quote:you still do not get it. software will be copied. deal with it. that's it.
--- End quote ---
This is also true, but keeping the source secret, and imposing copy licences does limit it's distribution. Big graphic design firsm will not get away stealing Photoshop for long, because it will become eveident what software they are using.
IMHO, I think this is good. I mea, sure some poor broke kid may steal a copy of Photoshop, and get really good at it, so good that he gets a job doing Photoshop work. At this point he will be able to aford his own copy, and will probably need to buy it. Shoulden't Adobe be compensated for providing the kid a means to his own success? I think so.
Perhapse a licence that has this as a clause should be devised. You can use this software if you are a broke ass mofo who needs to learn, but if your gonna profit from it you gotta pay. Anyway, that's one way of thinking of it.
quote:there is NO WAY to limit copying.
and another thing:
there is NO WAY to limit copying.
i'll just say that agin, as it is IMPORTANT:
there is NO WAY to limit copying.
--- End quote ---
Yes and no. Downloading a CD image is a bitch on dialup, so that's a deterent. Sometimes pricetags look alot better than leaving your modem on for two days, not to mention hopping to go someones server is fast.
Also, as mentioned above, you will be called on illigal copying should you be a big enugh company who tips thir cards given the very work they produce.
quote:you can either waste your breath trying to stop copying and having these dumbassed "wars" against "pirates" (replete with golden earrings no doubt) or you can live in the real world where software licencing and copyrights take human beings' motivations and requirements into consideration.
--- End quote ---
I agree with this. All I am saying is that this does not necissarly mean that all software should be released under the GPL or a similar licence. I just don't think that is appropriate in all cases.
Should EULA's be a little more realistic and less assrapist, yes, definitly. I like Apple's APSL. But that's just me
quote:which do you think is easier and best in the long run?
--- End quote ---
Perhapse a newer comercial licence model that takes into acount copying and P2P distribution as actual facts. This does not necissarly need to be BSD, or GPL.
quote:which do you think is best for those who are successful capitalists?
--- End quote ---
I don't think either the GPL or current licencing EULA's are the optimum model for even a capitalist society. The GPL pretty much will make you no money as far as your hard work programmin goes, and other EULA's just call you a thief and make you feel bad. It's gotta be a kinda compramise or somethin.
Fett101:
quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
Please discontinue the use of faulty analogies.
--- End quote ---
Ah. I had thought you meant that you thought it was fine for you to play non-free games, but not for people to make them. Pardon.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version