On 01/05/2011 03:41 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:45 +0530, steve wrote: >> > then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A >> > takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy >> is >> > still open. >> >> Let's us assume that A is smarter than you > > the very fact that he is dumb enough to take *my* code makes that > assumption very remote ;-) >> (OMG ! is that even possible ??) and >> has added stuff that you cannot implement independently for another >> year or so >> -- you have effectively killed B's freedom (of /choice/) -- he now >> either has to >> give up his software freedom or give up technical advancements. In >> this scenario >> who is the person causing the restriction to freedom ? > > *shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money for > software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and you > cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of people > paying for software because they think they cannot do without it. Not my > problem.
How did cash come in the picture ? Let's say A also distributes your app with his improvements for 0 price (ie: freeware). The crux is you don't care about B's loss of freedom of choice although you harp on A's <sarcasm>freedom</sarcasm> to close code that was open. Slightly misplaced priorities, don't you think ? cheers, - steve -- random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/ what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
