🚀 go-pugleaf

In <361a5c9a.611857314@news.onramp.net> msissom@dnaent.com writes:

>Not in principle. I made it. I own it. I will do with it as I
>wish. If you want to use it, you will agree to my terms. Other
>wise you will do without it. The principle really is pretty simple.
>There are no regulations required. You can certainly go and make
>your own version of it, but in no case do you have the 'right' to
>take something from me.


Fine. And I will ask you to enter into an agreement with me as well
wehre I stipulate terms under which I will be willing to pay you money
to use your software. Noone has any objection to this model. But it is
not eh model that software companies selling to the public use. They try
to impose a license on the user after the transaction is completed. They
try to use trade secret law and copyright law to cover the same item.
They claim that what they sell you does not necessarily do anything they said in
their advertising it does do. And then they try to force the taxpayers
through the imposition of criminal law to enforce these contracts for
them. 

IF they desire to sell through public channels, and if they want the
state to use its power to enforce their claimed monopoly then the state
has the right to impose conditions on the company in return for these
rights. To me, the revelation of source is a reasonable requirement in
this exchange. That does not stop you from entering other agreements
with me for the sale of your software to me. It just stops you from
trying to use the legal system and the state to enforce inequitable (to
me) conditions on my contract with you. 

Your position seems to be that you want the state to do lots for you,
and to enforce your monopoly for you, while accepting no obligation in
exchange on yourself. It;s of course nice if you can get it, but I do
not see how you can see this as anything but selfishness and greed on
your part. If you don;t ask society for anything, then society has no
right to demand conditions on you. But as soon as you want society to
protect you, though the courts and civil and criminal law, then you also
have responsibilities.

What those responsibilities are is of course open to discussion. I am
advocating that they should include revelation of source code.