On 01/05/2011 03:41 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
On Wed, 2011-01-05 at 14:45 +0530, steve wrote:
then B is an ass - he should have taken it from me. The fact that A takes my code and closes it only applies to the copy A has - my copy
is
still open.
Let's us assume that A is smarter than you
the very fact that he is dumb enough to take *my* code makes that assumption very remote ;-)
(OMG ! is that even possible ??) and has added stuff that you cannot implement independently for another year or so -- you have effectively killed B's freedom (of /choice/) -- he now either has to give up his software freedom or give up technical advancements. In this scenario who is the person causing the restriction to freedom ?
*shrugs* that is B's problem - no one compels him to pay cash money for software - it is his choice. If you cannot get something free, and you cannot do without it or work around it - you pay. I see lots of people paying for software because they think they cannot do without it. Not my problem.
How did cash come in the picture ? Let's say A also distributes your app with his improvements for 0 price (ie: freeware). The crux is you don't care about B's loss of freedom of choice although you harp on A's <sarcasm>freedom</sarcasm> to close code that was open. Slightly misplaced priorities, don't you think ?
cheers, - steve