--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Matteo Sisti Sette <[email protected]> wrote:
> From: Matteo Sisti Sette <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [PD] Very large patches unstable? > To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <[email protected]> > Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 3:41 AM > Jonathan Wilkes escribió: > >> [...] then I must conclude, that nobody > >> should pay for software. > > > > Do you mean to say that "nobody should pay for > _proprietary_ software?" > > You're right, I meant: > "nobody should be charged for using software" > Now you can put or not the word "proprietary" and it makes > no difference, since nobody can be charged for using FLOS > software. That's not true: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > > > Besides, how is it that "existence > of bug" = "the software doesn't work?" Buggs can exist > without makking software inoperable, you konw. > > Well, exagerating on purpose, I said "doesn't work" not to > mean "is inoperable" but rather "doesn't work 100% as > expected". Even if this is very questionable, it was in > relation to the comparison with "hardware" commercial > products, where usually even small defects give you the > right to have the product replaced. But in the hardware example, you're paying money for a product, and (at least in the U.S.) I think your demands to have the product replaced that you are speaking of stem from the Uniform Commerce Code. That's a demand in the true sense. With the free software examples we're talking about, you're not paying a fee to download and use the software. There's certainly still a code by which people work and interact, but it's much more elusive and far from uniform. -Jonathan _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-list
