--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com wrote:
From: Matteo Sisti Sette matteosistisette@gmail.com Subject: Re: [PD] Very large patches unstable? To: "Jonathan Wilkes" jancsika@yahoo.com Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" matju@artengine.ca, pd-list@iem.at Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 3:41 AM Jonathan Wilkes escribió:
[...] then I must conclude, that nobody should pay for software.
Do you mean to say that "nobody should pay for
_proprietary_ software?"
You're right, I meant: "nobody should be charged for using software" Now you can put or not the word "proprietary" and it makes no difference, since nobody can be charged for using FLOS software.
That's not true: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
Besides, how is it that "existence
of bug" = "the software doesn't work?" Buggs can exist without makking software inoperable, you konw.
Well, exagerating on purpose, I said "doesn't work" not to mean "is inoperable" but rather "doesn't work 100% as expected". Even if this is very questionable, it was in relation to the comparison with "hardware" commercial products, where usually even small defects give you the right to have the product replaced.
But in the hardware example, you're paying money for a product, and (at least in the U.S.) I think your demands to have the product replaced that you are speaking of stem from the Uniform Commerce Code. That's a demand in the true sense. With the free software examples we're talking about, you're not paying a fee to download and use the software. There's certainly still a code by which people work and interact, but it's much more elusive and far from uniform.
-Jonathan