So, as an outcome of the above arguments
Posted Sep 26, 2004 23:15 UTC (Sun) by gallir
Parent article: An Interview with Tom Lord of Arch (O'ReillyNet)
we are realising that RMS is right: you cannot never trust in non-free
software, even is if comes from "amicable" people. It always hides
surprises, none of them very ethical, of course.
Nobody can "poke" with BK because it's "theirs"? also every knowledge
needed to build it? have they developed their own graph algorithm? did
the invent computers again? did they never see cvs and similar tools? did
they never read any academic paper?
Please Larry, stop claiming you "own" everything in your code and
therefore you every right on it. First because it's not true (and it's
not true for any computer program), second because nobody can check it
You "poked" the whole world, and you now want to negate the same rights
to others because you want expensive cars. Nice, arrogant guy.
PS: even considering you software as a "physical product in a capitalist
free market", what you do (no selling it to a possible competitor) is
ethical and morally questionnable, possibly illegal in some countries.
to post comments)