----- Original Message ----- From: "jtdyahoo" jtdesouza@yahoo.com
with the software? Frankly, I'd put my money in MS stock as opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like flamebait, but only to those who don't know me already.
Which is the main bone of contention. Are the rights as ebodied in the gpl more important than the right of a business to survive. I think not. Business have to be built keeping this fundamental point in mind.
Agreed, probably an element of the "middle path" companies.
A standard mobike is a standard software package, a customised mobike is a customised software package. The prices are related to the rawmaterial, labour, and other inputs and are more or less similiar for similiar models. In contrast software prices have absolutely no corelation to their production costs. You can copy a mobike but it is not cost effective - no fancy laws here. You cant copy the software due to coyright laws - not because of economics.
Copying a bike I assume would be making one exactly like it, in performance, looks, whatever, and branding it differently. If it were to be identical and also named the same, then it would be a knock-off, like fake Levis. I think the software companies also look at copying without paying as fake levis, and why shouldn't they? I agree about one thing though - cost of production of software is a one-time cost. Every copy sold beyond a certain number is pure profit for the company with reference to that particular product.
competition, that isn't a barrier at all. They can sell it as they wish to and we can choose not to use it if it doesn't suit our philosophy(ies).
As long as they do not prevent you from using any or all parts as you please.
A little slack in the licensing perhaps?
Oh dear but APIs are the family jewels and who cares what you want to do, (billgates accent here) "It would be very dangerous for the Company and it's shareholders to expose the family jewels to others. How would we continue to milk you of your last penny with our d*** in your hands?"
Ok, that's OS specific, and kinda veering from the subject - licensing, business models etc. This is a whole new discussion :)
The copyright and patent laws effectively prevent use of your intellect for betterment. That is much more insidious than not doing something (M$, being the favoured whipping horse, is used here). DMCA, Adobe, MP3, GIF the list is very long.
All listed patents not Good Things(TM). Patents is probably a larger issue here, since it applies to software and motorcycles too! The guy who "invented" the yellow smiley face that says "Have a nice day" made only $45 from it. I know I'd like a bit of money if I created something that graced the T-Shirts of millions. I guess he should have patented it. Don't go overboard on this one, it's an off-the-cuff example.
How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted? There are no software licenses that will prevent you from NOT using the software.
The reverse engineering of APIs and programs is illiegal (AFAIK).
Yes, but we're still free to choose GNU/Linux and other free OSes.
If body of public data is in a properitory format, it has become unusable without explicitly agreeing to become unethical. This is a sort of corruption that is worse than passing a law. BTW is the pdf format gpl.
This seems reasonable. The GIF fiasco was definitely quite ridiculous. I know I wouldn't like to find out that HTML has been patented. Maybe there need to be more guidlines on patents relating to data such as GIF, PDF and others.
Who wants to be an ethical millionaire?;-)
Ooohh... ooohhhh.. (waving frantically)
How? And apart from the usual suspects in the commercial software world, would you say most software companies use unethical licensing? If you're going to answer this question with RMS's ethics as a frame of reference, don't. I'm really not that ethical.
--- Tushar Burman GNU/Linux/*BSD evangelist, friend to animals. tb@freeos.com icq: 112803958 y!: tusharburman msn: tusharburman aolim: tusharburman ---