On Mon, Mar 10, 2003 at 04:47:56PM -0500, Glenn Maynard wrote: > > I don't understand this question. Having access to the source is > > necessary if you want to make changes. Examples of dentists' software > > aren't relevant (unless you're a dentist), because that'd be outside > > of the sort of use we want to pick out. > What if Google released source code? > It'd be neat, but it wouldn't let me enhance the search engine to get > better results; all I could do is run a miniature, useless search engine > on my system. It's not enhancing my freedom to change the software at all. What if Windows release source code? It'd be neat, but it wouldn't let me enhance the operating system to work better; I don't know how to program, so all I could do is rebuild it with some different optimisations. It's not enhancing my freedom the change the software at all. This *is* enhancing your freedom, it's merely not giving you everything you might want for nothing. It means you can talk your LUG and four or five others into putting together a few dozen boxes each, and connecting them together, and hacking them up to make a mini-google that you do have more control over. It means you can do the same for your companies intranet, without having to pay google for one of their rackmount boxes. It means you can start a competitor to google without having to have done all their research. It means you can work out how to make your pages artificially rank higher on the real google. Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <email@example.com> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Dear Anthony Towns: [...] Congratulations -- you are now certified as a Red Hat Certified Engineer!''
Description: PGP signature