[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Does it do that?

From: Alfred M. Szmidt
Subject: Re: Does it do that?
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 16:00:58 +0200 (CEST)

   > People should also have the freedom to use, study, improve and
   > distribute the software they have.  Earning a living by subjugating
   > the rights of ones users is not a honest one.

   So you can get reasonably rich then without subjugating?

You can earn a living without subjugating the rights of others, yes.

   Why, then, do the Software Corps like to take away as much freedom
   as possible then?

Greed, power trips.

   The toy companies get along quite well (and some are HUGE,
   multi-BILLION dollar businesses -- how much more "successful" can
   you get?) without prohibiting people from modifying or sharing the
   toys bought from them!

People are allowed to modify and share the toys they buy, compared to
most software.  You can't even give your friend a copy of a non-free
program, let alone help him fix it.  With a toy you can do all those
things.  But toys are physical objects, so they aren't as easy to
duplicate as software, so a direct comparison between the two is not

   >    If not, then does the reluctance to accept free software
   >    indicate a want to be as greedy (as opposed to honest) as
   >    possible on the part of the software industry?
   > Seeing the many attempts of companies to pass through laws like
   > IPRED2, Software patents, DMCA/EUCD, one should be quite
   > convinced that part of the software industry is blinded by greed.

   What if you want to make a huge amount of money to use for _good_,
   world-benefitting purposes?

What if I enslave millions of people so I can have them work on
solving the issues of poverty, our energy needs, polution?  The
question is meaningless since the `what if' bit is to big.

   Like say I wanted to make $400 mill.  to fund developing, say,
   renewable energy technologies or pursuing unorthodox lines of
   scientific research into, say, curing disease, that other
   scientists may not be interested in funding. Would using
   proprietary software for that purpose still be too greedy?

Using non-free software is always wrong, it doesn't bring any good to
the world.  Nor do you need non-free software to do any of those, you
need it as much as child labour.  Again, the `what if' is to big, and
it makes the question meaningless.

   Could "free" software get one said world-benefitting money?

That implies that money is the solution to all problems, which it is


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]