On 06/12/2007, Dave Crossland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > 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.
Then we'll have to agree to disagree. > > 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. Tell that to the MythTV box I'm building. It looks and feels like a free alternative to me. 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. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Your ideals do not seem to include freedom for all users; instead, > power for developers. Yes they do, users have the choice to take the original source, compile it and then run it if they want. In my world, developers and users have identical freedoms. 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. They do, well informed users do anyway; I'm a user of many FOSS products (both large and small) I regularly submit bug reports and feature requests etc. If a user can't be bothered to inform themselves that's their problem. Vijay.
