PureBasic Forums - English

I don't like the expression "intellectual property". By using the word "property" we imply that if someone "takes" the "intellectual property" the original owner will no longer have it. But this is not case. Since "intellectual property" is just a fancy name for certain types of information, and information can be shared without getting "diluted" or less usable by the sharer.
Since sharing information does not "dilute it", there is no real reason(1) not to allow information sharing. By using the word "property" we imply that there is a good reason to forbid the sharing or use of certain information. Thus the use of this expression is harmful to our own minds.

Remember, the idea is everything, and if the idea changes, everything changes. Don't let anyone direct your ideas to go against common sense.

(1) Except for increasing revenue for certain corporations at the expense of others.

Trond wrote:

Please do not port software to Windows!

At least, do not port my software to Windows.

I don't want any of my work to give anyone a reason to support companies like Microsoft who try to limit people's freedoms

http://www.fefe.de/nowindows/

Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

Now tell me, what's having freedom worth, if you can't use it?

To me, the persons argument, at least part of it, is stupid. Says this: "Windows is a proprietary environment. They don't give you the source code, and they do anything in their power to limit your freedom. They even try to limit what you can do with the software you rightfully bought from them. So, supporting them in any way is bad for the world, because it encourages others to try to limit others' freedoms (it worked great for Microsoft, so it must be a good idea, right?)."

Well, yeah, and so ?

Yes its a proprietary item, thats part of something called the free enterprise system. So, if you don't like it then don't use it. Why should they give you the source code? If you made something for profit purposes and sold it would you give away the methods and manner at which you arrived at your product only to have others use those same methods and manners to bite into your profit? No, of course not, it would be stupid to do so. I don't think he gets the point which is; it is completly within his control, our control, to decide what we do with our creations, and if we decide to sell them and not give away the methods and manners behind the creations thats his and our right to do. This is nothing new, its been present since the dawn of time when the first culture traded with another culture for the first time, and when that other culture threatened to take away that tradable item the two cultures clashed in battle to settle the matter and it worked for one or the other of the two, someone gained proprietary ownership of the item and could then decide how it was used.

Trond wrote:

Please do not port software to Windows!

At least, do not port my software to Windows.

I don't want any of my work to give anyone a reason to support companies like Microsoft who try to limit people's freedoms

that defies the very meaning of "freedom"!

While I use linux and support open source / free software, I am certainly no "freedom beard"--I think RMS is a weird guy, and a bit extremist for my tastes.

Like others have said...the BSD license is better

Trond wrote:

Kuron wrote:

Trond wrote:Just think about it. People who use GPL are just like their proprietary enemies: they say "do with our software whatever you want, as long as it is what we want".

Now tell me, what's having freedom worth, if you can't use it?

One could ask if somebody is letting you use their work for free, especially in code form, is it really fair to complain about any restrictions they may impose or request?

No, not at all. People can make any restriction they want on their own software. But they cannot make any restriction and still claim to be free as in freedom.

[/quote]
+1

Another point that didn't seem to get tossed in is the fact that Apple's OS is also mostly proprietary, if not all proprietary and is not open source, as well Apple also wants to restrict what people can do, at least they currently do on iPhone and iPad through their App Store. I think that's even more controlling than Microsoft is. It sounds more like this guy is simply an MS hater than anything. And while he's at it, he should also request that you do not port his stuff to OS2/Ecommerace since it's also a proprietary system.

Oh well... Zealots! Can't live with them, can't live without them!

garretthylltun wrote:Another point that didn't seem to get tossed in is the fact that Apple's OS is also mostly proprietary, if not all proprietary and is not open source, as well Apple also wants to restrict what people can do, at least they currently do on iPhone and iPad through their App Store.

Weren't sizable parts of Mac OS X and iPhone OS lifted from FreeBSD and NetBSD?

garretthylltun wrote:I think that's even more controlling than Microsoft is.

Yeah, and Steve Jobs estranged twin brother behaves exactly the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs

the.weavster wrote:

garretthylltun wrote:Another point that didn't seem to get tossed in is the fact that Apple's OS is also mostly proprietary, if not all proprietary and is not open source, as well Apple also wants to restrict what people can do, at least they currently do on iPhone and iPad through their App Store.

Weren't sizable parts of Mac OS X and iPhone OS lifted from FreeBSD and NetBSD?

garretthylltun wrote:I think that's even more controlling than Microsoft is.

Yeah, and Steve Jobs estranged twin brother behaves exactly the same: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xh_9QhRzJEs

They call it Darwin... I'm not sure exactly what it's forked from, but yeah, one of the BSD flavors.

aaron wrote:I've started licensing my code under the Poetic License

The best license I have seen!