Once again to clarify,
Your slightly acerbic comments do have the scent of your passion towards
FOSS. Iam all for passion, but just consider the point i have been trying
to make.
I create X. I want to use a retail business model(whether it works or does
not work is out of the question) but as a proprietor i have a right to
choose my business model! [point 1]
If a person buys mp3 of a shakira song (who i think has a great voice btw)
he has every right to listen to it, add his own effects for his own
pleasure (remix it) but he should not broadcast it. Because by doing so,
he is infringing on the record labels copyright. Thats what copyrights &
patents are for! To prevent misuse and to protect the
originator/creator.[point 2]
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish. But when
i distribute it as if it were my own(even with modifications), iam
basically building upon the millions(possibly) spent by the creator in
developing, market research for usability and marketing. The creator has
every right to stop me from distributing the software because as a creator
he/she has every right to control who gets the software and who does not!
Software is intangible like mp3 and the effect of free distribution will
make my business model non-profitable! What about the creator's effort
then? Sure you might build on it to make something better, but the
original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made
the software, but not at his expense! He has created something and wants
to be compensated for his effort. If he does not it's a different matter.
But saying that he should release as distributable is infringing upon his
moral right!(this is indirectly implied when you dub his software as not
free (as in freedom))
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely
distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the
creator. If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But he
should have his say. That being said, there are seperate licenses.. (GPL)
is just one of them. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell
it under a different license.
Now iam all for freedom software, but just because FOSS philosophy says
that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean
that it's right. It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators
right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege
not your right!
Regards,
Sachin G.
--
http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
