On 14-Jan-07, at 3:57 PM, Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
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]
yes
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]
here starts the confusion. copyright != patent. Please find out the difference.
When i buy a software i have a right to use it in any way i wish.
no - when you 'buy' doze, you have practically no rights whatsover - check the EULA
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. 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! 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 original idea was his(the creator)! [point 3]
if you distribute it without the permission of the creator - you will wind up in jail. You can only distribute it if the creator gives you permission - which is called a license. Kindly check the difference between license and copyright
The creator likes the society as a whole to be benefited thats why he made the software,
he made the software either because he enjoys making software, or to scratch an itch or to make money. Nobody writes software for the benefit of society.
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))
he has the right to do whatever he wants with it - but if he keeps it non-free, it is non-free.
If FOSS philosphy says explicitly that every software should be freely distributable, then it is infringing upon the fundamental right of the creator.
how so? FOSS is not a law - it has no police to enforce it's dictates. It is an opinion. I firmly believe that the earth is flat. And that anyone who thinks it is round is an idiot. How does that infringe on your fundamental right to believe that the earth is round? Or do you think the flat earth society should be banned?
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.
jail
Now iam all for freedom software,
you arent
but just because FOSS philosophy says that freedom software should be distributable free of charge does not mean that it's right.
you have the right to believe that the FOSS philosophy is wrong. And also learn to distinguish between free as in freedom and free as in free of charge.
It's a fundamental moral infringement upon the creators right. You being able to use a distributable software is your privilege not your right!
ahh - here you are right