On Wed, Apr 04, 2001 at 11:03:38AM -0700, Joseph Carter wrote: > such a philisophical view, the technical ramifications of not allowing > modification of code are simple and worrysome - usually leading to the > situation we have with the people in Redmond and other software developers > worldwide: You are locked into proprietary and expensive channels. Your > bang-for-the-buck is inversely proportional to the dependency you have on > that channel. And of course, dependency is usually at the least a linear > function of time.
Why is this a matter of modification of code? Do you think if the source came with every copy of Word, it would change anyone's dependence on Word? You'd still be locked in. It takes pretty much every property of free software working together to stop that. There's no reason to single out modifiability. A program under the font license in question (permitting everything but modifications) wouldn't lock you into to a propriatary and expensive channel either. -- David Starner - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Pointless website: http://dvdeug.dhis.org "I don't care if Bill personally has my name and reads my email and laughs at me. In fact, I'd be rather honored." - Joseph_Greg
