|
|
|
|
|
|
by DonaldFisk
3407 days ago
|
|
|
What you appear to be arguing is that developers shouldn't be compensated for their efforts unless they write custom software for commercial organizations as contractors or employees, and that if they develop novel software no one thinks to ask for, that should just be given away free for others to profit from. > if they have permission and are doing the modifications themselves, why should they pay the original author? They should have paid the author for the right to use the software. That would normally include the right to adapt the software for their own purposes. The author has the right to decide on the terms of the licence under which software is released. Any user who doesn't agree to the terms shouldn't be allowed to use the software. |
|
|
I never said that this shouldn't happen, don't attribute me words that I didn't say. I said that typically it won't, since it doesn't make any sense to the users of the software.
> They should have paid the author for the right to use the software. That would normally include the right to adapt the software for their own purposes.
You didn't reply to my question, which was: why?
> The author has the right to decide on the terms of the licence under which software is released. Any user who doesn't agree to the terms shouldn't be allowed to use the software.
No one is arguing otherwise. What I'm trying to explain is that developers following that strategy will likely find themselves with very few users. In the long term, the developer who gives the users a product that better matches the user's needs will displace the one who doesn't, that's pure market behaviour.
Paying the author for the right to be locked in a closed software ecosystem is a terrible value proposition from the point of view of the client. Note that this argument applies primarily to software like the one in the article, which tries to be a development platform, not necessarily to applications.