Well, it could be perceived that I have that right because I have added value to the original work and made it something more valuable than the original. Or simply different. The act of adding value means that it is now identifiable as _my_ work and not the original.
By no means does this, or should it, preclude others from starting with the same source I did and either adding their own value to it or recreating what I have done. If you want the same results I got, put in the same effort and you can do it for your self.
While I realize that isn't very friendly, it may just mean that I'm a jerk and nobody will listen to my music because of that. I don't think it means that I should be forced to give away the value I added simply because somebody before me was willing to. It would be different if I could acquire all the copies of the album, lock it up, and then people would only have access to my derived work. That would be "wrong" because the general public would no longer have access to the "source" that I derived my work from.
Copyleft just seems rife with problems of this sort, and in an age where digital copies are almost effortless and nearly free it seems unnecessary. When you have an infinte supply of beer (can make zero cost copies), Free as in Beer ==> Free as in Speech.
I still don't understand why Tivo-ization is viewed as "bad" from people who want to develop or used GPL software.
It's the same principal as downloading music. It isn't theft since it's only a copy of something which continues to exist. And anybody who is doing it probably wouldn't bother to do the entire project from scratch (ie, wouldn't buy the album). It doesn't diminsh or affect the value of the original code.
Why do people get all annoyed about it when somebody uses the software they wrote in that way?
Slashdot Mirror
Well, it could be perceived that I have that right because I have added value to the original work and made it something more valuable than the original. Or simply different. The act of adding value means that it is now identifiable as _my_ work and not the original.
By no means does this, or should it, preclude others from starting with the same source I did and either adding their own value to it or recreating what I have done. If you want the same results I got, put in the same effort and you can do it for your self.
While I realize that isn't very friendly, it may just mean that I'm a jerk and nobody will listen to my music because of that. I don't think it means that I should be forced to give away the value I added simply because somebody before me was willing to. It would be different if I could acquire all the copies of the album, lock it up, and then people would only have access to my derived work. That would be "wrong" because the general public would no longer have access to the "source" that I derived my work from.
Copyleft just seems rife with problems of this sort, and in an age where digital copies are almost effortless and nearly free it seems unnecessary. When you have an infinte supply of beer (can make zero cost copies), Free as in Beer ==> Free as in Speech.
I still don't understand why Tivo-ization is viewed as "bad" from people who want to develop or used GPL software.
It's the same principal as downloading music. It isn't theft since it's only a copy of something which continues to exist. And anybody who is doing it probably wouldn't bother to do the entire project from scratch (ie, wouldn't buy the album). It doesn't diminsh or affect the value of the original code.
Why do people get all annoyed about it when somebody uses the software they wrote in that way?