On 06/12/2007, vijay chopra <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Personally I believe (as you seemed to agree) > that code is an art form
I disagree totally. Code functions; it does stuff. There is a craft to making code, and that can be compared to the craft of making artwork, but artworks themselves do not function. > My position offers freedom without taking it away from others as people are > free to not to buy Private-Eye, rap music or weaponry, just as people were > free not to buy a TIVO. But its illegal (software idea patent and dmca-style laws) to make your own TiVO, and to make one and sell one. So you can not buy a tivo, but you can't buy a free alternative. > To be blunt, I disagree that what TIVO did took any > freedom away from anyone, they just did something I didn't like, Generally, users of proprietary software have given up their freedom. To say the company making the software took their freedom is only valid when they are forced to use the software - such as legal requirements to read documents in a format only readable by proprietary office software. > my position is in fact more idealistic than that > of the FSF, and as a result GPLv3 is not (as claimed) more idealistic than > GPLv2 but less so as it is more restrictive. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, power for developers. The point of the software freedom movement is that users and developers should have the same degree of power over the development of the software. -- Regards, Dave - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
