Re: request to ban 'no source' contributions
On 24 Sep 2004 12:37:21 +0200, Christian Cuvier
<Christian.CUVIER at agriculture.gouv.fr> wrote:
>I'm afraid I thoroughly disagree with you on this.
We agree to differ then.
>
>I see no reason whatsoever to allow or promote closed source.
That is unfair to use both in the same sentence.
-->I see no reason whatsoever to promote closed source.
Is a VERY different argument to
-->I see no reason whatsoever to allow closed source.
BECAUSE the latter is effectively the same as
-->I have good reason to disallow closed source.
Such reaons, of course, apart from regurgitations of the benefits of
open source, simply do not exist.
>If a project is
>easy to clone, there's no relevance in selling it under any form, and that
>very act should be outlawed probably. If it's sophisticated enough, there
>won't be any serious cloning at all.
This is not about the morality of capitalism. It is about pure choice.
>
>Regulations on intellectual property equally apply to open or closed source,
>so that binding cannot take any commercial argument as an excuse. Things that
>are worthy of being sold don't get pirated, only overpriced software is. Or
>software with unduly harsh licensing terms.
So? What the heck has all that mush got to do with anything? I am not
asking you whether you *prefer* open source. I am not asking you to
further promote open source. I am not asking you to judge the value of
any submission, open source, closed source, generalised or not.
I am asking you not to restrict my choice.
<SNIP>
>Bound code has no benefits
FALSE! (your caveats were only pro-open source ones)
>please give me any reason why the source should not be available
Derek provided a list which I think caught most.
I can't remember if he explicitly covered the "I will make it open
source, but I'm so interested I want to do it myself/am on such a roll
that comments from anyone else looking at my code will just distract
me and slow the whole thing down".
BTW, Print Preview is a contractual thing. The source (ish, not just
Euphoria) is not strictly owned by me, in my eyes at least. While it
is true that I would almost certainly never be caught, and that I am
undeniably permitted to re-use it for personal gain, just simply
giving it away, when someone else paid for (part of) it, is not on.
Especially if my previous customers' competitors get to use it free,
thus gaining an unfair advantage.
If you cannot understand that, I cannot explain it to you.
Frankly, God himself might struggle.
Pete
|
Not Categorized, Please Help
|
|
