21 Feb
2006
21 Feb
'06
3:40 p.m.
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 17:28 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:12 +0100, Björn Lindström
wrote:
ROTFLMAO! Exactly. Arbitrary monopoly my left ventricle. Why do
people think they should have rights to software that I write unless I
give them those rights. Let's carry this inane argument to it's logical
(or illogical) conclusion. Somehow he thinks that if I write a piece of
code he should be able to do anything he wants with it even if I don't
want to release it under a license he agrees with. So, using the same
twisted logic, he should be able to do anything he wants with a song
that I write as well. How about a painting? A poem? A novel? All of
these have similar content. They can be copied without removing the
original from my possession. Does that make it ethical? Moral? Legal?
I think not.
--
Jan 'Evil Twin' Depner
The Fuzzy Dice
http://myweb.cableone.net/eviltwin69/fuzzy.html
"As we enjoy great advantages from the invention of others, we should be
glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and
this we should do freely and generously."
Benjamin Franklin, on declining patents offered by the governor of
Pennsylvania for his "Pennsylvania Fireplace", c. 1744
Lee Revell <rlrevell(a)joe-job.com>om>:
Sorry, I was discussing the real world...
Depending on how much more advanced your
application is than that of
your competition, open sourcing an app could have huge costs.
If you had read another three lines, you'd have seen I already
answered that:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:53 +0100, Björn
Lindström wrote:
> (I'm not counting the hypothetical cost of lost sales of copyright
> licenses, which as I pointed out are an arbitrary monopoly, not a
> moral right.)