Re: [OT] Intelectual Property Law [WAS: Re: what graphic card to buy?]
On Thu, 19 Jul 2012 01:17:49 -0400
Doug <dmcgarrett@optonline.net> wrote:
> On 07/18/2012 11:45 PM, Celejar wrote:
> > On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 23:30:57 -0400
> > Gary Dale<garydale@rogers.com> wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> >> Personally I think one of the biggest appeals of Debian (and of Linux in
> >> general) is the commitment to freedom. IP laws and the degree to which
> >> hardware vendors support freedom is relevant to purchasing decisions.
> > I agree.
> >
> >> Debian users need to understand that attempts to encumber knowledge for
> >> profit are inherently wrong.
> > I don't wholly agree here. I have a very strong preference for FLOSS,
> > for many reasons, but I fully respect the rights of others to develop,
> > sell, buy and use non-FLOSS. It is the right of others, individuals and
> > corporations, to develop, market and sell proprietary software; it is
> > my right to avoid such stuff to whatevenr extent possible.
> >
> The problem is that there is a huge number of specialized programs
> developed to fill a particular need, in many cases using a great deal
> of specialized knowledge. There are, for example, microwave CAD
...
> Sorry for the bandwidth, but I think the Linux user--I'm certainly
> one of them--needs to realize what real specialized software is, and
> what it costs to develop, and why it's not free.
>
> BTW: when I mention expensive, I'm not talking Microsoft Office
> numbers, I'm talking 5 and 6 figures!
Thanks for the detailed explanation; I understood your basic point,
although the detail was certainly illuminating. Was this directed to
me? As I wrote above, I'm perfectly comfortable with the rights of
creators to charge whatever they feel their product is worth / whatever
the market will bear / whatever they feel it costs them to design /
produce it. If I need it enough, and there's no FLOSS alternative, I'll
buy it.
--
Celejar <celejar@gmail.com>
Reply to: