|
|
|
|
|
by Karunamon
4422 days ago
|
|
That doesn't clash at all. It's maximal freedom on both sides - you decide under what terms the developer's program runs. If the developer doesn't like those terms, the app doesn't run. Either the user accepts the developers desired TOS on their device, and they get to run the app, or they do not. I'd go a lower level than the legal contract. If the app says it wants X to run, and you deny X, the app is under no obligation to run. Your back yard, their code. |
|
Ownership (as opposed to renting) enables distributed rights instead of centrally-granted privileges. Hoping that competition between centralized privilege-granters will compensate for a lack of true rights is an error based in the fallacy of efficient markets.
In reality, competition/enforcement is not perfect and defaults matter. To expand on the example I just gave, Honda could indeed require me to sign a contract saying I will not use the car to drive to a Toyota dealer. But with no way of stopping me, their only recourse is to exert resources bringing me to court. To be motivated to do so, they must be actually suffering real harm rather than a mere general desire of trying to prevent competition. So ridiculous ideas like that end up laughable non-starters rather than ever present niggling restrictions that are too numerous to fight.