David Johnson scripsit: > The key phrase in your post is "at the time". At the time you purchased the > apartment you were fully aware of the restrictions, explicitely agreed to > them, and (I can only assume ) that you actually signed a document to that > effect. You are under contract. There is nothing inherently immoral about two > consenting individuals negotiating terms over the use of a piece of property.
Okay, good. (It hasn't actually happened yet, BTW.) > The situation is different in software. Imagine if you purchased your > apartment thinking that you had full home ownership rights to it, then walked > up to the front door the first time and saw a note that said "by entering > this apartment you hereby agree to...". Well, the example is not on all fours, because you don't buy an apartment on a retail basis, without a hand-drawn contract, lawyers on both sides, etc. etc. > If the aforementioned company wants to restrict the use of their software to > only "socially conscious" individuals and companies, then they need to > explicitely license their software to them. They can't just post it on a ftp > site somewhere and impose restrictions on the user AFTER the user has legally > aquired the software. So you argue that the GPL is immoral? It imposes after-the-fact restrictions on redistribution; they just serve different purposes than the "not-to-be-used-by-the-South-African-police" license. Remember, this is not a restriction on *use*, but on redistribution. The copyright owner has the right to restrict redistribution. Indeed, even the BSD license restricts you from redistributing software in source form with the author's name and copyright hiked off, as AT&T found out some years ago to their cost. In any event, suppose there had been a text saying "You may not redistribute this text to anybody currently on Eric S. Mbogo's List of Certified Bad Guys" and a button to click that said "I accept" -- and only then do you get to download. Would that be moral? > p.s. The law may say that you own your apartment, but sounds more like an > indefinite lease to me. Technically, I will own shares in a corporation that owns the building; as a condition of ownership, I have tenancy of the apartment. When I leave, I sell the shares back to the corporation and vacate the apartment. (Feet first.) -- John Cowan http://www.ccil.org/~cowan [EMAIL PROTECTED] To say that Bilbo's breath was taken away is no description at all. There are no words left to express his staggerment, since Men changed the language that they learned of elves in the days when all the world was wonderful. --_The Hobbit_ -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
