[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Galeon R.I.P?

On Tuesday 01 January 2008, Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Jan 1, 2008 7:10 AM, s. keeling <keeling@nucleus.com> wrote:
> > Paul Johnson <baloo@ursine.ca>:
> > >  On Dec 30, 2007 7:11 AM, default <plute@sdf-eu.org> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 03:02:34 -0800, Angus Auld wrote:
> > > > > It does seem pretty fast. Personally, I use Opera, and it's
> > > > > been my
> > > >
> > > > Same here. I've tried quite a few browsers, but none keep up
> > > > with opera for speed. Shame it's not Open Source, but you can't
> > > > have everything.
> > >
> > >  You could boycott it for being proprietary.  That's the morally
> > >  correct answer.
> >
> > Since when does proprietary == immoral?  Who made your CPU?  Intel
> > or AMD?  Aren't they proprietary?
> Hardware has scarcity which software lacks.  There's no economic
> reason to sell software.  Programmers should sell their service since
> trying to sell the product is, by definition, going to piss customers
> off and limits their freedoms.

There is, though, economic reason to not release software code.

If I had to open source the part of my system that goes on my clients' 
computers, someone who didn't put in the effort to develop it would 
start a company without the development costs and cause me serious 

But maybe I'm wrong.  After all, it's so easy to take a moral high 
ground and say you know what's absolutely right when you're the one who 
has nothing at stake by following what you say.

There is a serious need for balance in the field of IP.  While some feel 
it's okay to download any song for free and others want to control 
everyone's complete use of a song, movie, or software (for instance, 
the MS license that does not allow using standard XP as a web server 
for public use), we do have to remember that it takes work to produce 
IP and much of what's out there would not be there if it weren't for 
people and companies being able to get a return on their investment.


Reply to: