Miscellaneous > The Lounge
Why Free Software?
lazygamer:
quote: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)
--- End quote ---
Now are you certain that your not gonna flame me and go back on your statements if I were to say "Yah your right Calum, it doesn't matter if I pirate shit. Just don't pir8 that wind0ze for sure, but anything else makes no difference."
X123:
quote:Originally posted by Calum: crusader for peace & freedom:
.........This means you can charge for it, but the person who receives it can give it, or a modified version away for free if they like, or they can also charge for it..........
--- End quote ---
That's like saying to someone:
I spent hours working on this piece of software. You can make copies and re-sell it whilst keeping the profits of my hard end work to yourself.
How the hell would this work?
slave:
quote:Originally posted by The Knife Thrower:
That's like saying to someone:
I spent hours working on this piece of software. You can make copies and re-sell it whilst keeping the profits of my hard end work to yourself.
How the hell would this work?
--- End quote ---
And why not? If somebody can sell a used Mac on ebay for $400 and somebody buys it and saves $300 over buying it from the Apple store, should Apple have the power to say "NO! Do not buy it from him! Only buy it from us, so we can get rich at your expense!"
Copying and sharing published information should be everyone's right, and I will always stand by that philosophy. If you don't want people copying your product, get in the business of making things that can't be copied, like cars or something. But I think cooperation is always more important than copyright.
X123:
quote:Originally posted by Linux User #5225982375:
And why not? If somebody can sell a used Mac on ebay for $400 and somebody buys it and saves $300 over buying it from the Apple store, should Apple have the power to say "NO! Do not buy it from him! Only buy it from us, so we can get rich at your expense!"
Copying and sharing published information should be everyone's right, and I will always stand by that philosophy. If you don't want people copying your product, get in the business of making things that can't be copied, like cars or something. But I think cooperation is always more important than copyright.
--- End quote ---
Here is an exmaple of why it's not right.
Mr Z has just created a new internet browser which is really good and costs $1 to buy.
Mr A want's to buy this piece of software so he pays $1
Mr A then says that he wants to sell it to his friend
But this is not like a selling your car to A friend. You can make copies of it.
So Mr A decides to sell copies to 100 of his friends
So Mr A gets $100 for doing fuck all
Mr Z gets $1 for 100 people to use his software which he worked to create
So this license allows some prick to make money out of what you created by paying you hardly anything compared to his profits.
flap:
Well it's not the case that he's done "fuck-all" - he's providing the distribution service. But the question you're asking is; why is the freedom to re-sell free software an important one? Or maybe you're objecting to the right to non-commercially redistribute as well.
For free software to be really free, it has to be commercially re-distributable; if it weren't, it wouldn't be commerically viable to develop free software. An example is Mandrake making a GNU/Linux distribution based on Red Hat's. They used someone else's free software to create their own, and were free to sell it on, under the same terms, with no obligation to pay Red Hat any money.
In your example, it may be thought of as unethical for Mr A to sell 100 copies and not give anything back to Mr Z (if Mr Z isn't making enough money already), but that isn't as bad as restricting the free-ness of the software by denying users to commercially redistribute it or any derivatives of it. Ultimately, if you can't re-sell code then free software is much less attractive to business, which will hamper its take-up.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version