[Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
Sat Dec 15 16:05:12 UTC 2012
Film at 11
On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 10:55 AM, DaWorm <daworm at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is no way RMS affects us TODAY. But if he gets his way, THEN we
> would all be affected.
> On Dec 14, 2012 8:59 PM, "rdflowers" <base at chalice.us> wrote:
>> There is no way that RMS affects you, UNLESS this code of yours isn't
>> fully yours but you would like to incorporate someone else's code in your
>> own without fulfilling their license terms.
>> You wouldn't do that, would you?
>> I still don't see what some find to be unclear -- maybe just because it
>> just isn't convenient to them that things are as they are?
>> ----- Message from daworm at gmail.com ---------
>> Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2012 20:13:30 -0500
>> From: DaWorm <daworm at gmail.com>
>> Reply-To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group <
>> chugalug at chugalug.org>
>> Subject: Re: [Chugalug] Richard Stallman and open source
>> To: Chattanooga Unix Gnu Android Linux Users Group <
>> chugalug at chugalug.org>
>> On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 7:17 PM, Stephen Kraus <ub3ratl4sf00 at gmail.com
>>> I don't think making money off your code will ever be an issue,
>>>> hire you to program, what code you use to do it is less of there concern
>>>> beyond maybe which language you use.
>>> I write embedded systems code. I control hardware via software, and the
>>> hardware is trivial to copy. While my company might continue to sell
>>> hardware even if my software were to be free to the world, for a little
>>> while, it wouldn't be long before someone else would copy the whole lot
>>> go into competition with us. RMS thinks that's a grand idea. When some
>>> Chinese knockoff made by nearly slave labor undercuts our prices by 50%
>>> though, it won't be long before I'm out of a job. They spent a couple of
>>> days copying the PCB, an hour or so figuring out how to compile my code,
>>> and !bam! they're in business. So the months, and sometimes years it has
>>> taken me to develop a product is now copied in a matter of days. I'm
>>> sorry, that's not the kind of world that rewards innovation.
>>> We all know its a fools errand to ask programmers to work for free, but
>>>> Stallman has a point: Companies shouldn't be allowed to copyright
>>>> individual bits of codes, a whole program? Sure, but copyrighting
>>>> individual lines and statements is like copyrighting the English
>>>> sentence by sentence.
>>> If I come up with a sort routine that is a thousand times faster than any
>>> other out there, I (or my employer) darn well better be able to copyright
>>> that, and not just the whole program that makes use of it. However, it
>>> usually isn't copyright that provides that protection, it is patents.
>>> software patents are a whole 'nother kettle of fish. I would agree that
>>> all the bullshit about copyrighting "look and feel" needs to go. But
>>> novel algorithms and methodologies deserve some form of protection. The
>>> problem lately is the definition of "novel" has gotten pretty sloppy.
>> ----- End message from daworm at gmail.com -----
>> R. D. Flowers, Chattanooga, TN, USA
>> Chugalug mailing list
>> Chugalug at chugalug.org
> Chugalug mailing list
> Chugalug at chugalug.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Chugalug