🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 23:26:44 +0100, Jason Clifford
<jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>In article <m3zpbdl5bs.fsf@obelix.wegge.dk>, Anders Wegge Jakobsen
><wegge@wegge.dk> writes
>> Can you argue for the opposite, ie. "A monopoly is unable to control
>>the sale and distribution of a good"? Nah, I didn't think so
>>either. Why don't you go and get a dictionary yourself?
>
>A monopoly is the situation where a single entity has exclusive rights
>to market a **type** of product and no-one else may produce and market a
>similar competing product.
>
>The control of the sale and distribution of a single product most
>certainly does not exlude the posibility of someone else producing a
>similar product and bringing it to marketing.
>
>> As long as one single person have the skills required to fix a bug,
>>all users will profit from it, as long as the software is Open
>>Source. Otherwise they will have to pay through the nose to get what
>>they already paid for at least once (too many).
>
>The choice exists to use a product or to use a different one. If it
>matters to you that much then it is up to YOU to bring an OpenSource
>product out which is the equal of the propietary one - YOU DO HAVE THAT
>FREEDOM!
>

exactly.  You have the right to create a word processor that looks,
works and feels just like Word97.  You just can't use M$ source code
to do so.

The real problems of the M$ world aren't created by copyright law or
shrinkwrap licenses, but by market power and what are being revealed
as very dubious, probably illegal, business practices.

I support Linux and the gnu license agreement because I think it's a
better way of doing things.  I also think that there's lots of money
to be made in writing open source software.  I'm willing to put money
in such a venture, and if anyone's interested, please feel free to
contact me.