On 10/03/2012 06:27 AM, Alan Cox wrote:
On Tue, 02 Oct 2012 20:05:38 -0400
Mark LaPierre<marklapier@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10/02/2012 04:18 PM, Alan Evans wrote:
On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Roberto Ragusa wrote:
So final users would have had the best hardware running the best drivers
(open source too).
This is something which must not be permitted to happen. :-/
Not if it helps to sell the competitor's hardware.
Programmers, and corporations for that matter, have the right to decide
how they choose to distribute their property.
Software is not property.
Corporations are people too
Only in some broken countries but you are correct they still have to
survive.
Companies do open source seriously do it because it suits them for their
own purposes. Thats generally a good thing because self interest is a
great motivator and far better than the kind of sham token support from
many companies.
Free market economics sucks at finding optimal behaviour, it's just it
sucks less than most of the other models tried 8)
Alan
If I were to write a book, or paint a picture, or create a poster, or,
by any other creative means, produce some product from my efforts it is
my right to decide how, when, or if, I choose to distribute, transfer,
or share said product.
If my employer is paying me to create that product then the product
belongs to my employer, under whatever circumstances and conditions set
forth by my employer and the conditions of my employment, by the same
right. The fruit of my labor is my employers property.
Software is no different. Software I write for my employer belongs to
my employer to do with as my employer decides. Software I write on my
own belongs to me. I retain the rights to said software until I decide
how and when to release it. That software is not different, morally or
legally, from any other product I produce. If I create a drawing that
drawing is my property, no different from that software I wrote, or that
book that I wrote, or that airplane that I built. It is my property and
it it is my right to dispose of said property at my pleasure.
My comments above should not be construed to say that I favor or condone
the practice of patenting software. Software is similar to the product
of any other creative practice. Books, drawings, photographs, and
software property should be protected under copyright. Even the Free
Software Foundation agrees with this position by reason of promulgating
the practice of licensing software property under open source licensing.
Let me restate that. The FSF promotes licensing of software property
under open source license.
--
_
°v°
/(_)\
^ ^ Mark LaPierre
Registerd Linux user No #267004
https://linuxcounter.net/
****
--
users mailing list
users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change subscription options:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users
Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
Have a question? Ask away: http://ask.fedoraproject.org
