Jan Depner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 00:43 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Jan Depner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
If I want Excel running on GNU/Linux, I can just shoot myself. I
am not paying for such crippled
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no?
Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software
is crippled in its usefulness.
Usually
Hannu Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no?
Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
Yes. If you don't want to pay anything for software your only choice
is to get some morally clean free sofware with no other
documentation than the source code. This works well if you are a
programmer and have enough spare time to find out how the
Hannu Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
Yes. If you don't want to pay anything for software your only choice
is to get some morally clean free sofware with no other
documentation than the source code. This works well if you are a
programmer
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
In practice using free software also means that you are using it
for free? I apologize if this was not the case with you. If you
have really paid seomething to the authors of the free software
packages you are using then I would say your moral is
Hannu Savolainen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006, David Kastrup wrote:
In practice using free software also means that you are using it
for free? I apologize if this was not the case with you. If you
have really paid seomething to the authors of the free software
packages
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 16:16 -0500, Lee Revell wrote:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 13:01 -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
But please, IMO, don't pay for any non-open source software. There are
lots of excellent p2p tools you can use to get the software you need.
Please don't support makers of
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:28 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
How can we expect people to abide by the GPL if we don't respect
their licensing terms? Stealing proprietary software is exactly as
immoral as proprietary vendors ripping off GPL'ed code.
While you
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
fons adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:01:10PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes
people's freedom
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:08 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Who is talking about not paying?
This whole discussion was ignited when someone advocated pirating (or
stealing, or whatever) commercial software.
Lee
Jan Depner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
If I want Excel running on GNU/Linux, I can just shoot myself. I
am not paying for such crippled software. If that means that I
have to do with less sophisticated free software, so be it. It is
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2006-02-21 at 14:08 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Who is talking about not paying?
This whole discussion was ignited when someone advocated pirating (or
stealing, or whatever) commercial software.
Since there was nobody else in support of that, it
On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 00:43 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Jan Depner [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:41 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
If I want Excel running on GNU/Linux, I can just shoot myself. I
am not paying for such crippled software. If that means that I
have
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 13:01 -0800, Kjetil S. Matheussen wrote:
But please, IMO, don't pay for any non-open source software. There are
lots of excellent p2p tools you can use to get the software you need.
Please don't support makers of non-open source software.
What?!?!? Are you serious?
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:28 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
In so far as moral can be applied here, restricting people from
tinkering with the software they run is immoral, since it diminishes
their freedom.
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes
people's freedom to
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:28 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
In so far as moral can be applied here, restricting people from
tinkering with the software they run is immoral, since it diminishes
their freedom.
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:53 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 22:28 +0100, Björn Lindström wrote:
In so far as moral can be applied here, restricting people from
tinkering with the software they run is immoral, since it diminishes
their
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:01:10PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes
people's freedom to roam around my house.
Those people have not paid for access to your house. Purchasers of
proprietary
On Mon, 2006-02-20 at 23:01 +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes
people's freedom to roam around my house.
Those people have not paid for access to your house. Purchasers of
proprietary software _have_ paid for access to the
fons adriaensen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:01:10PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
Lee Revell [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
By this logic, locking my doors is immoral because it diminishes
people's freedom to roam around my house.
Those people have not paid for access
On Mon, Feb 20, 2006 at 11:41:43PM +0100, David Kastrup wrote:
They have paid for a license to use it, and for nothing else.
Well, then they might have some expectation to be able to use it, no?
Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
applications, or fix errors
Without the ability to adapt the software to different devices or
applications, or fix errors (or pay someone to do that), the software
is crippled in its usefulness.
True; buy a licence which includes sources and the right to change it.
That's it.
When buying electronic appliances, at one
On Monday 20 February 2006 23:41, David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
It is annoying. If I want a Porsche engine in a VW bug, I can buy
the parts and all relevant service manuals and plans, and put a
mechanic to work.
Actually, you might run into trouble with the electronics! Some engine
management
24 matches
Mail list logo
