Active Topics
-
Maemo repository (6)
to Community by chrischras - 1 hr, 48 mins ago -
Porting apps to Leste (44)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by norayr - 1 hr, 53 mins ago -
List of well performing apps on Leste (35)
to Maemo 7 / Leste by smatkovi - 2 days, 23 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Motorola Moto G7 Power (XT1955-5) - (ocean) (13)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 3 days, 21 hrs ago -
Sailfish OS for the Samsung Galaxy Note 4 (SM-N910C) - (treltexx) (79)
to SailfishOS by edp17 - 3 days, 21 hrs ago -
U-Boot for Nokia RX-51 with BootMenu (updated version 2012.10-rc3-1) (843)
to Alternatives by Arno_11 - 4 days, 2 hrs ago - more...
 |
|
2010-03-03
, 17:31
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#232
|
Originally Posted by ewan
If they agree to the contract up front then why not? They have a freedom to choose another option so it is not a case of respecting their freedom at all. They are free to express their views as in free speech by choosing to not support or even to criticise the work, not to copy it directly without permission.
It's not about the price per se, but a consequence of respecting the freedom of your users. You may or may not believe that people have a right to study, modify and share software, but some people do. Software freedom is like freedom of speech; you can't take it away from people by contract just because it's convenient for you to do so.
Originally Posted by ewan
There is also a point of view that bashing people over the head and taking their goods and money is reasonable too but not one that I feel most people would claim as morally supportable.
...
That's a perfectly valid point of view. But it's not the only point of view. Clearly, there are a lot of people that don't, in practice, support it.
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:38
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#233
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Please feel free to start a new thread non that but this one has a specific title.
In that case I'll go away again.
A coherent, legitimate discussion I'll participate in. (difference in pay models, what developers should or shouldn't or could or couldn't do, etc).
...
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
As an SA you are, I assume, paid for the work that you contribute to your clients. If your income was based on whether your systems sold to the general public that would be another matter.
...
Fruitless bantering I won't.
You aren't going to stop hackers from cracking DRM, or pirating software, by ranting on a backwater nobody forum. Even if this were somehow an official Pirate, or Anti-pirate forum where it was on topic and noticed by people that actually maybe could potentially almost make a difference... it won't.
And to just up and quit software development because you finally realized that you won't stop piracy is equally silly... you know there are pirates - you know your software will be pirated.. just like as an SA I know my systems can be hacked.. and if I'm popular enough are likely to get hacked eventually.
The effort then is damage mitigation.. whether you can make enough money off the people that do pay vs those that don't for you sleep happily at night.
I never said I was quitting software development. As a company however we will not be commercially supporting development on Maemo at present as we don't have a way of recouping substantial costs for development. We will simply persue other platforms as we have in the past to cover our investments.
As for knowing your systems can be hacked - All software can be broken eventually but I would hope you are doing due dilligence and trying to avoid that possibility unless he systems in question have no reason to be protected in the first place in which case is it really hacking?
The point though is not whether you can stay ahead in the 'game' but whether or not you should be having to do it in the first place!
 |
|
2010-03-03
, 17:42
|
|
Posts: 733 |
Thanked: 991 times |
Joined on Dec 2008
|
#234
|
Originally Posted by ewan
I respect your right of opening or closing your software, so I also expect you respect my right of opening or closing sourcing mine. This mutual respect of what I don't see happening in the software world.
It's not about the price per se, but a consequence of respecting the freedom of your users. You may or may not believe that people have a right to study, modify and share software, but some people do. Software freedom is like freedom of speech; you can't take it away from people by contract just because it's convenient for you to do so.
My point is: is we are talking about freedom, then I am free to do with my software whatever I want with it, like making it fully propietary or making it fully GPL compliant.
Since I am not coercing people into using my software, the only thing I would ask from them is to respect the rules by which I release my software, being them open or closed.
The problem here, is that many people use the argument of freedom to not respect such rules. There is, off course, people that use the propietary system to preserve knowledge secret, when it would benefit more people if it was shared.
I think there is where the patent system was supposed to help: you work hard, you get a breakthrough, and you get to enjoy the perks of it (propietary), and after some time, you are supposed to release the advancement for the common good (open).
__________________
Hola! Soy un Guía de Maemo!.
Vínculos interesantes si nos visitas por primera vez (en inglés): New members say hello , New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Si te puedo ayudar con cualquier otra cosa, sólo dilo!
Hola! Soy un Guía de Maemo!.
Vínculos interesantes si nos visitas por primera vez (en inglés): New members say hello , New users start here, Community subforum, Beginners' wiki page, Maemo5 101, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)
Si te puedo ayudar con cualquier otra cosa, sólo dilo!
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:42
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#235
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
That's a dreamworld right there. The honor system doesn't actually work.. you know
The point though is not whether you can stay ahead in the 'game' but whether or not you should be having to do it in the first place!
.
 |
|
2010-03-03
, 17:43
|
|
Posts: 445 |
Thanked: 572 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Oxford
|
#236
|
Originally Posted by Fargus
The trouble with arguing based on what 'most people' think is that an awful lot of people are completely fine with the idea of 'pirating' software, which is why it happens so much and so casually.
There is also a point of view that bashing people over the head and taking their goods and money is reasonable too but not one that I feel most people would claim as morally supportable.
People like to share, to support each other, and we generally teach children that sharing what they have is the good and right thing to do. There's certainly an economic case to be made that government imposed restrictions on sharing are a necessary evil to promote useful creative work, but it's much harder to claim that preventing sharing is an abstract moral good.
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:45
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#237
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
The point exactly I was trying to make and I suppose the whole point of why this thread started in the first place!
That's a dreamworld right there. The honor system doesn't actually work.. you know
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:48
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#238
|
Originally Posted by ewan
I thought we also taught them to pay for what they use and that reward for effort expended is reasonable too?
The trouble with arguing based on what 'most people' think is that an awful lot of people are completely fine with the idea of 'pirating' software, which is why it happens so much and so casually.
People like to share, to support each other, and we generally teach children that sharing what they have is the good and right thing to do. There's certainly an economic case to be made that government imposed restrictions on sharing are a necessary evil to promote useful creative work, but it's much harder to claim that preventing sharing is an abstract moral good.
the debate over release model is defiantely one that is worthy of attention but I thought the title of the thread implied that given a specific model had been chosen, was it right to by pass the given agreement.
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:48
|
|
Posts: 3,428 |
Thanked: 2,856 times |
Joined on Jul 2008
|
#239
|
Originally Posted by mrojas
Just to put more logs on the fire as this thread has entertained me today...
The problem here, is that many people use the argument of freedom to not respect such rules. There is, off course, people that use the propietary system to preserve knowledge secret, when it would benefit more people if it was shared.
Google released chrome a while back accidentally left some verbiage in the EULA that essentially said absolutely everything you viewed or did through their browser became the property of google.
Now.. google did get a lot of flack for that and they fixed it.. and google would never dream of actually using that in a practical world.. but I just wanted to make sure that you are ok with the fact that I can write a browser.. distribute it and in a very lengthy and wordy EULA that nobody reads anyway say that any and all materials, and sub-materials, and any related materials - to any web page or access done through my browser.. is owned from that point forward, by me.
So all those people that don't read the EULA.. and download and use my browser, and then access their bank page (sending me all their information).. and via wordage in my EULA.. essentially turned over their bank accounts to me..
And I am now legally rich.. because hey - I can release my software under any aspect I deem necessary. A lot of people will complain I'm sure eventually.. but unlike Google I'm not interested in being nice.. so I'll continue to offer my browser, with that EULA, for download to everyone who doesn't read EULA's or google search.
I'm liking you...
|
|
2010-03-03
, 17:52
|
|
Posts: 1,217 |
Thanked: 446 times |
Joined on Oct 2009
@ Bedfordshire, UK
|
#240
|
Originally Posted by fatalsaint
Well obviously they would have to own the rights to be able to grant that too you in the first place so there might be a few issues there! But i do like the business model!
Just to put more logs on the fire as this thread has entertained me today...
Google released chrome a while back accidentally left some verbiage in the EULA that essentially said absolutely everything you viewed or did through their browser became the property of google.
Now.. google did get a lot of flack for that and they fixed it.. and google would never dream of actually using that in a practical world.. but I just wanted to make sure that you are ok with the fact that I can write a browser.. distribute it and in a very lengthy and wordy EULA that nobody reads anyway say that any and all materials, and sub-materials, and any related materials - to any web page or access done through my browser.. is owned from that point forward, by me.
So all those people that don't read the EULA.. and download and use my browser, and then access their bank page (sending me all their information).. and via wordage in my EULA.. essentially turned over their bank accounts to me..
And I am now legally rich.. because hey - I can release my software under any aspect I deem necessary. A lot of people will complain I'm sure eventually.. but unlike Google I'm not interested in being nice.. so I'll continue to offer my browser, with that EULA, for download to everyone who doesn't read EULA's or google search.
I'm liking you...
As for turning over the bank account, mmm, no, they would potentially give you access to their security information as the bank account is a seperate entity.
Does make a sensible point about the daft language needed in the first place to make things work for the lawyers. Does however come back to the point that if people didn't try to copy software in the first place these things wouldn't be needed in the first place!
Ooh - maybe this is an arguement for the Hollywood buffs - DRM is only there because of the pirates! LOL (No, I am not serious about this!)
A coherent, legitimate discussion I'll participate in. (difference in pay models, what developers should or shouldn't or could or couldn't do, etc).
Fruitless bantering I won't.
You aren't going to stop hackers from cracking DRM, or pirating software, by ranting on a backwater nobody forum. Even if this were somehow an official Pirate, or Anti-pirate forum where it was on topic and noticed by people that actually maybe could potentially almost make a difference... it won't.
And to just up and quit software development because you finally realized that you won't stop piracy is equally silly... you know there are pirates - you know your software will be pirated.. just like as an SA I know my systems can be hacked.. and if I'm popular enough are likely to get hacked eventually.
The effort then is damage mitigation.. whether you can make enough money off the people that do pay vs those that don't for you sleep happily at night.
If I've helped you or you use any of my packages feel free to help me out.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintaining:
pyRadio - Pandora Radio on your N900, N810 or N800!