Linux World domination (was Re: [NCLUG] PC for Linux (Ubuntu))

[Chad Perrin]

On Fri, Sep 19, 2008 at 12:20:06AM -0500, Rob Bayerl wrote:
> On 9/18/08, John L. Bass <jbass at dmsd.com> wrote:
> > I fully understand GPL and copyright ... as you do, that isn't the issue
> > at hand. The issue, is the ability of independent self employed software
> > authors to profit from their work by selling proprietary software that
> > is not open source, as well as corporations and other business that
> > employ software authors.
> 
> Finally it all makes sense.  You agree with the free software movement
> under the terms that you can utilize someone else's code for free, but
> people should have to pay for your services because you are,
> apparently, unwilling to adapt to changes in your chosen industry.
> Personally, I believe that free software is a two-way street.  If you
> use someone else's, you should provide code you have written.
> Anything less is just selfish.

It sounds to me like you would prefer to bar non-programmers from using
open source software.  I suspect that is not what you intended to
suggest, but it is what your words seem to convey as your position on the
issue.  Please clarify so we can clear up this misunderstanding (or
establish that it is not a misunderstanding).


> 
> I would also like to point out that there is quite a difference
> between a piece of software and a work of art (be it literature, a
> painting or whatever).  Software is REQUIRED to utilize your already
> owned hardware.  A painting is not required to utilize your wall.  If
> it makes a difference, I also believe that music should be free as
> well.  Commercialization of human expression seems almost demonic to
> me.

I don't agree that software differs in any essential manner.  The fact
that software is used to gain value from your hardware does not
substantively differentiate the ethical status of software "ownership"
(for some definition of ownership) from that of, say, a painting.  In
fact, by analogy, one might consider a frame and canvas the oil painter's
equivalent of the programmer's hardware platform.

I don't believe that software or music should necessarily be free, in the
commercial sense of the term, but I do believe that once one has paid to
acquire possession of a software or music recording, one should then have
proprietary rights to that recording, as the default state of things.
Obviously, this could be altered by the existence of explicit contractual
agreements (which, by the way, is not what an End User License Agreement
constitutes at all).

-- 
Chad Perrin [ content licensed PDL: http://pdl.apotheon.org ]
Bill McKibben: "The laws of Congress and the laws of physics have grown
increasingly divergent, and the laws of physics are not likely to
yield."
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 195 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20080919/5255fe94/attachment.pgp>