Eric Furman wrote:
On 08 Jan 2008 20:21:08 -0500, "Daniel Hagerty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
"Eric Furman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
This is one of the most retarded things I've ever read.
You might get one wanker to pay for it, but if it comes
in non-binary with all the source what's to stop them
from posting it on the internet and everybody else
getting it for free?
Good question.
Theo de Raadt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Profits from CD sales are the primary income source for the OpenBSD
project -- in essence selling these CD-ROM units ensures that OpenBSD
will continue to make another release six months from now.
Maybe this guy can explain it to you.
OK, *that* was the most retarded thing I have ever read.
You're comparing apples and oranges.
No, he's not.
Stallman said "I'm not against buying software from developers (as long
as it is free software)".
That is the baseline for your "This is one of the most retarded things
I've ever read" comment. You make a valid point, what is to keep someone
from taking the source that they'd bought and putting an exact digital
replica online. This implies that you can't make money selling the
source to software that could potentially be had sans gratis on the 'net.
Daniel then brought up the idea of CD sales. Something you can buy and
put an exact digital replica of online. By your implication that you
can't make money selling the source to potentially sans gratis, it's
also implied that you shouldn't be able to make money with CD sales of
*definite* sans gratis software because someone could either buy the CD
and make a .iso version available online or you could just get the
software sans gratis anyway.
Since you're missing the analogy I'd say you probably didn't intend to
imply that. For those of us that read the implication there, though, the
analogy makes perfect sense.
kmw
--
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
