On 14/01/07 15:57 +0530, Sachin G Nambiar wrote: > 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] > No one is denying your right to choose a business model. You can still choose to manufacture buggy whips.
> 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 Hint 1: You are not exactly buying software, you are merely accepting a license in most cases. > 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! Common fallacy. Once you put it out into the public, you can't control who gets it. > 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 You see, it is not for anyone else to guarantee the success of your business model. > 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)) The author has every right to release software under any license they like. One of the conditions that any software must pass to qualify as Free Software is that there be no limits on the right to redistribute the software, as long as that right is not removed from the next person. > > 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. > You can't. Sorry, but that's just the way it works. The origincal code stays under the same license as before, because the only people who can change that license are the copyright owners. > 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 It doesn't say free of charge. It just says that redistribution must be allowed. The GPL explicitly claims that the _source_ of the software needs to be made available to the recipients of the binary at a maximum cost of distribution media. > right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege > not your right! > Keeping that privilege requires that you follow the conditions under which this privilege is extended to you. Devdas Bhagat -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
