🚀 go-pugleaf

seajays@my-deja.com wrote:
> 
> In article <39F92280.600A277A@my-deja.com>,
>   Angus McBastard <angusmcb@my-deja.com> wrote:

> > Your analogy is weak to say the least, but even using such a tool, you
> > have to agree that the closed source equivalent under this frame of
> > reference is selling a piece of music and then *forbidding* the
> singing
> > of the *song*.
> >
> 
> It is not - it is exactly the same.  No one forbids you playing the
> music once you have bought it.  They do forbid you from then copying
> that music and making profit for yourself out of it.

In this analogy the source code is the song and the object code is the
recording. You buy a licence to play music in public for profit, but no
one can stop you singing the song to yourself. With a music recording,
you get the "source code" with the product. This is patently not the
case with proprietary, closed-source software


> 
> > The fact is that a piece of software supplied without source code is a
> > product unfit for consumption. This has been demonstrated empirically
> > time and again. Further, shrink-wrapped software licencing as it
> stands
> > today supplies no guarantees as to fitness of use of even *object*
> code
> > and as such contravenes just about every consumer standard you can
> think
> > of.
> >
> > Software companies, far from suffering from piracy, have been stealing
> > and profiteering from consumers for decades.
> >
> > > In fact, the 'numbers' argument is a red herring anyway, as
> *anything*
> > > can be broken down and represented by numbers if you so wished.
> Your
> > > own genetic code could be represented thus.  If someone came along
> and
> > > decided to make a clone of you, using the argument, "but its only a
> > > numeric sequence", would you feel the same way?  Or would you think
> > > that the particular sequence that defines you, ought to be afforded
> > > some protection?
> > >
> >
> > To address this issue, let me put it in another light for you....
> >
> > Do you find it acceptable for Monsato to have a patent on *your*
> genetic
> > sequence?
> >
> 
> Ah - we agree!!  That is my point entirely.  They can't - because I
> already have - I got there first, I would argue strongly that you can't
> patent something that's already been 'invented'.

No we don't agree. Your genetic sequence wasn't "invented" any more than
prime numbers were "invented", yet in todays sick world, knowledge is
property and a corporation could well "own" your genetic sequence and
you couldn't even argue a prior art case.


> 
> And still no one answers my main objection, that *regardless* of
> whether it would create better software or not, you are *forcing* me to
> give up my rights for your ideal software creation situation.  If I
> don't want to join 'open source' I don't have to - what gives you the
> right to demand that I do?


I have the right as a consumer to demand that you as a software producer
sell products fit for use (no offence intended,of course), and I put it
to you again that a closed-source software offering, is unfit for
consumption.

No matter what you say, it is not your (or my) *right* to sell these
products...it amounts to little more than theft from the consumer. 

If you are going to consider a rebuttal to this argument, then you might
begin by justifying the terms imposed by current proprietary software
licensing. 


Angus

-- 
It said WinNT 4.0 or better on the box.
So I installed Linux.