|
|
|
|
|
|
by dpower
2768 days ago
|
|
|
> ultimately backed by violent force, to ensure compliance with this belief This is true of all laws. This is how society works. If you don't like it, in a democracy you can campaign for change. You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine. You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work. I just don't think FOSS software alone is tenable. |
|
|
I am well aware this is how laws enforced by governments work. It does not necessarily follow that is how society works, or that it must be so. I'd rather stay on topic than turn this into a criticism of democracy, however.
>You seem to believe you have a fundamental right to copy someone else's works. If the author of those works grants you permission (open source) - then fine.
On the contrary, you seem to believe you have a fundamental right to use violent threats to intimidate me into not copying or modifying code.
>You seem to suggest that people shouldn't profit from their work.
I absolutely do not suggest that. There are ways one can profit from software development (or other creative and technical endeavors) that don't involve threatening people with violent force.
>I just don't think FOSS software alone is tenable.
I understand that. At least acknowledge that you are the fundamentalist here, taking the approach that because you don't believe it is "tenable" for software to be free, you think it is pragmatic and therefor acceptable to use violent force to prevent others from copying or modifying code.