🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Pine.LNX.4.10.10010271042560.13756-100000@www.uklinux.net>,
  Jason Clifford <jason@uklinux.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2000 seajays@my-deja.com wrote:
>
> > Now this issue is, I agree, and important one but it is an entirely
> > seperate issue to that of copyright.  This problem can be resolved
> > easily without removing peoples rights over their own work, simply
by
> > enforcing current 'fit for purpose' laws.
>
> I agree with you completely that it is your right to determine that
your
> works will be licensed only under an inferior model. Personally I feel
> that in time the market will no longer be willing to tolerate that in
> respect of software however that is for a free market to decide based
upon
> experience of which method provides better results and value - let's
not
> forget that Free Software is not about price and it is very common for
> Free Software to be sold at a price more than sufficient to support
it's
> authors as I myself do.
>

I agree.  If indeed open source is seen as being 'the way', it will
naturally succeed the current system.  The change to an open source
environment can be achieved without removing anyones right to copyright
their work if they so wish, as, if the benefits materialise, people
will move to that way of working anyway.  That decision should always
remain with the individual creator however and not be dictated to them,
if their rights are to be upheld.

> > There is no requirement for someone to show you how they did it,
only
> > that it should do what they say it will.  The onus is on them to
fix it
> > if it doesn't work, and the law should maintain that requirement.
>
> I agree. If you author something you own copyright in it and can
determine
> how it is offered to others if at all. They similarly have the right
to
> choose or reject your offering.
>
> Until recently however the ability to make that choice has been
limited to
> people like myself who can write our own solutions or are closely
> associated with those who can.
>
> The fact remains however that the law has consistently failed to
maintain
> the requirement of fitness for purpose with regard to consumer
software
> offerings.
>
> Jason Clifford
>

If the law has failed, it is a case for strengthening the law and
making it more effective - not for removing people's rights.


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.