Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
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]
That's why we have been saying patents are *not good*. A song is a way of expressing your feelings, its not a property or an innovation, its a feeling and you want to convey your feelings to others. If you dont want it to be distributable, why you ever release it as a music album ? Ya, I agree you want to make money out of it, but its also true that people think that you ask more money than what they feel its all worth of and hence piracy.
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.
This is were you are terribly mistaken the whole idea, even a practically proven fact! When you give your software to some one,
1. he uses it 2. If he feels it good in doing his job, a. he suggests the same to his friends. But, his friends also wish to test is themselves so he needs to *distribute*. b. he thinks he can help you in improving the software still better, so he contributes 3. He find some bugs in the software and if he is skilled, gets you some patches so your software becomes less buggy. Hence, when he shares/distributes the software with his friends, more eyes are looking into the software and hence more bugs get *solved* and your software improves. 4. So, its not the only user you gave your software to, but its 10 and 100s of others who voluntarily involve themselves in improving *your* software, just because they like it and think it is useful than others.
You need not spend *millions* in this manner to make your software reach high quality, feature richness or get a huge user base. And, a developer who has the skill to create software, and if he is indeed really interested in helping the community with good quality software, will indeed follow the FOSS philosophy we all stand for and not the one which you have misunderstood.
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!
Please understand the following
1. Software is knowledge, and hence should be characterized with free-flow, i.e. nothing should prevent it from reaching a user. 2. Software is just a idea made into action. Every person on this earth can have the same idea and find a means of making it do what it is intended to. Nobody owns knowledge or an idea, its all damn stupid if you say *I own an idea*. 3. If you say only the *creator* has the right to give the software to some one and he controls who gets the software and who do not, then that *creator* is going to mess himself to his own end.
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software, but not at his expense! 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 he has truly written something for the benefit of the community then why say 'he decides who uses the *thing* and who doesn't'. If he is really society conscious then its the *society* that should decide whether to use his *thing* or not. And this will occur when the society is free enough to share and test your *thing*.
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 software is not freely distributable, then its *useless*. If the farmer says he only can determine who eats the rice grown in his field, all his grains are going to rot!
If the creator wishes it to be distributed then it's fine. But
he should have his say. I can choose to modify a particular software and sell it under a different license.
Selling is not a problem at all, sharing/distribution is the question you are raising against! Yes, i agree who writes the software has the right to do whatever he wants with it, but he has no right to prevent distribution of the software and still want it to call it as *free software*, let him call it as proprietary software, we have nothing against him then.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the
creators right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
LOL! Moral being will share their resources with one another and help for improvement and betterment of one another. Not prevent the freedom of free knowledge just because he losses an additional $$. If you call something as *free software* then free distribution becomes a right. It actually causes the software to reach more users, get more contribution, see much more improvement in quality and hence reach higher heights!
If you do not understand or go along with our ideologies of sharing software as knowledge, then our mailing list is not the place to express your ideologies which can not be accepted by us. We agree to the human's right to make money, but we can not accept it or implement it in our way of life.