🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <39F9535C.3BD8B15A@my-deja.com>,
  Angus McBastard <angusmcb@my-deja.com> wrote:
> 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
>

Your singing the song to yourself is likely to be a rather poor copy of
it - and you probably won't profit from it either.  If you do make
money from it, then the artist gets a cut.  The 'source code' may be
available but you can't use it.

> >
> > > 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.
>

Genetics of course requires some additional protection.  What I am
trying to say is that *you* should have *your* genetic code protected,
in the same way as *you* should have *your* work protected (as granted
by your human rights).

> >
> > 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 is your right to sell the product of your work - just check my
previous references to the universal declaration of human rights.

If you don't like the terms you don't have to use the software.  Just
because you don't like the terms doesn't mean you have a right to use
the work without permission.  Simply use someone elses software who is
providing the source code, as that's what you feel you need.  You can
do this without impinging on my right not to give my work to you for
nothing.


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