On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 07:45:58 -0800, Sermo Malifer
<sermomalifer@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>George Barca wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:41:58 +1100, Terry Porter
>> <linux-2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> What type of compensation are you referring to?
>>
>> Being compensated if I write a book rather than people feeling
>> they can freely copy it and give it to their friends for example.
>
>Being compensated for writing a book means getting a publisher to print
>it and pay you for it. What would you do if 90% of books were printed
>by one publisher, and they rejected your book?
But if people illegally copy the book then the publisher doesn't
get paid and neither does the author who more than likely has a
contract that specifies a percentage of sales goes to him as
well.
>>>> I don't believe in giving stuff away unless every single entity
>>>> is giving stuff away and that will never happen.
>>> There are plenty of people giving stuff away right now. Richard Stallman
>>> gave away GCC. 10s of thousands of GPL coders have given away their code,
>>> including myself.
>>
>> Bad choice of words.
>
>You haven't stop choosing your words poorly.
Neither have you, apparently.
>
>> What I meant was that the only way the give
>> it all away free system works is if everyone is doing it.
>
>No, we need not be part of a global hive mind for free software to work.
It depends upon how you look at it.
I don't mind giving my work away for free however if I see
someone else using my work to get rich then I have a problem with
it.
Others may differ.
>> Look at free software for example.
>> Some person sits at home nights and weekends writing a CD burning
>> program and then gives away the source for others to use.
>
>That's only one way that free software gets written. Another way is a
>big company like IBM or Sun pays somebody to write free software.
Small in number compared to the number of freelance people
writing.
>> Now
>> Dell comes along and packages it as part of pre-installed Linux
>> on a system and makes a profit.
>
>Now Dell gets to keep more of their razon-thin margins instead of
>letting M$ cream off the profits.
It could be Microsoft too.
Nothing is stopping them from packaging their own version of
Linux. How would you feel if Microsoft packaged and made a profit
off software that you released OSS.
>> I personally think the person is an idiot and if the program was
>> good enough he should protect it and sell it commercially.
>
>The problem is M$ already has all the stooges and lackies it needs.
You seem to be hung up on Microsoft for some reason?
>The problem is the courts don't have enough expertise to rule on
>software patents and so are granted patents for things that would
>readily occur to anybody in the industry.
That is most definitely true.
>IOW, you're stereotyping all Linux/FOSS advocates according to some
>vague impression you formed by reading some blogs.
An opinion has to be formed one way or the other.
There does seem to be a pattern though.
>You seem to have missed the fact they have no choice in using Windows,
>in spite of starting your answer with "true."
Yes they do have a choice. If they believe in Linux enough to
advocate it then maybe they should consider using it during their
day job and most certainly they should not be critiquing others
for using Windows.
If you see your best friend drinking in the bar all day long you
might feel sorry for him and his family but other than himself he
is not really harming anyone or setting a bad example.
Now suppose you saw your priest doing the same thing and yet on
Sunday morning he was in the pulpit telling you all about the
evils of drinking. Would his message carry the same weight?
>No, not really. There are commercial programs for Linux. Being a
>Linux advocate doesn't equate to being opposed to all commercial software.
Funny, I don't get that impression at all.
George Barca
georgebarca1981@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
|
|
