Excellent point. It seems that these open source "rights" would be better off as open source "privileges." That is, one should maybe have the privilege to copy software, unless the creator invokes what seems to be a better-founded right to control what happens to his software. There are obvious instances (to me) where the user should NOT have the "right" to copy the software.
Those who advocate a consumer's right to copy software as a means of eliminating a software developer's existing right don't do anything meaningful to advance the discourse. It is more effective to argue what is at the heart of the matter: who should be favored? The developer or the user? Since the developer does all of the work, I would have to vote for him....
Who says that people who oppose violence would necessarily fault gun manufacturers for violence that they did not commit?
To digress slightly, how do you know that the gun manufacturers were NOT negligent in the New York case? I can't imagine how, but apparently a jury thought so... it mught help to see the *evidence*.
Slashdot Mirror
Those who advocate a consumer's right to copy software as a means of eliminating a software developer's existing right don't do anything meaningful to advance the discourse. It is more effective to argue what is at the heart of the matter: who should be favored? The developer or the user? Since the developer does all of the work, I would have to vote for him....
To digress slightly, how do you know that the gun manufacturers were NOT negligent in the New York case? I can't imagine how, but apparently a jury thought so... it mught help to see the *evidence*.