16 Aug
2013
16 Aug
'13
8:14 p.m.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Ralf Mardorf
<ralf.mardorf(a)alice-dsl.net>wrote;wrote:
On Fri, 2013-08-16 at 13:46 -0400, Egor Sanin wrote:
Ralf, perhaps you've never read it, but you should. this is part of the GPL
preamble:
/* This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but
WITHOUT */
/* ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY
or */
/* FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the GNU General Public License
for */
/* more
details.
It was not put there without reason.
On 8/16/13, J. Liles <malnourite(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
> As a though experiment: pretend you are a musician;
> if someone came to you asking you to rewrite your song to better suit
their
> listening needs, how would you respond?
There's a difference between art and tools released for the public.
Art, excepted of the crap on the radio, should not suit to anything.
A tool, even if it's for free as in beer, needs some quality. For
example, if I build a power supply for somebody for free, this person
can't expect that I fulfill all imaginable uses, e.g. for somebody who
needs it for a Tattoo machine, I won't provide balanced voltage, but it
could be used with the bikes battery and mains. What I fulfil is
security, if she/he should hang ab the tattoo machine on the bikes
handlebars no short will destroy anything, if the mains are used, nobody
getting tattooed will get an electric shock. If I build a power supply
just for my self, not for anybody else, I can ignore some security
things, because I know what I do with this power supply. I even could
use banana jacks instead of a Schuko jack to connect to the mains.
If some brash and shallow peruser of linux
expressed the same opinions
as OP, I would likely also bash that person
Why the double standards?
Regards,
Ralf