«

"Allistar" <> wrote in message
news: ...
> impossible wrote:
>
>>
>> "Allistar" <> wrote in message
>> news:dPednZzko-...
>>> impossible wrote:
>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Why should there be one set of rules for developers of operating
>>>> systems
>>>> and another set for developers of applications? What makes you so
>>>> special?
>>>
>>> There shouldn't. What gives you the idea that I think there should be
>>> different "rules"?
>>
>> What's with the scare-quotes around "rules". You have a problem with
>> democratically enancted laws and regulations that apply equally to all
>> citizens?
>


> I have a problem with laws that restrict the natural freedoms of otherwise
> free people. Being democratic does not mean being right.
>

Do you have a problem with democratically enancted laws and regulations
that protect private property?

Or do you object only to democratically enancted laws and regulations that
protect other citizens from the whims of private property owners?

>> Oh, wait.. .yes, of course, you do. You want freedom for
>> yourself, on your own terms, and you just expect others to comply. Is
>> that
>> about it?
>
> No, I want freedom for *everyone*. The exact same freedoms.

Let me guess: Freedom to whinge about taxes?

> If it's wrong for one man to take the property of another, then it's wrong
> for a million
> people to take the property of another, whether the majority of that
> million people agree to it or not.
>

That's just your Libertarian Catechism talking. Way too simplistic

If it's wrong for one man to take the property of another, then the majority
should pass a law forbidding theft.

If property owners benefit from state-funded police and fire protection,
roading, education, and other public services, the majority should pass a
law that taxes the value of them accordingly.

> A system where "might is right" is a system based on an unethical
> foundation. If a particular action between two parties is wrong, then it's
> still wrong if one of the parties is called "the state".
>

More empty phrase-mongering. Without the protections afforded by the state,
your property is worthless.

>>> People can develop their software (operating system or
>>> otherwise) under any licence and with any restrictions that they like -
>>> that's their choice as a free person.
>>
>> Says who?
>
> It's their code. They can use whatever license they like. It's completely
> up
> to them.
>
> If there's no rule of law that grants you exclusive rights to
>> the software you developed, then your "freedom of choice" in the matter
>> is
>> utterly worthless.
>
> Who said there was no rule of law protecing private property? There should
> be laws that protect us from harm from other people. That includes harm to
> our private property too.
>

And harm to the environment? Harm to our social, cultural, and economic
well-being?

>>> I don't want that to change (and Ive
>>> advocated for any such "rules"). I merely made a comment on how I
>>> consider people can have maximum freedom of choice when the operating
>>> system code is
>>> open. No mention of rules.
>>
>> There you go trying to rewrite your story again.
>>
>> You said: "The way to [h]ave real freedom of choice in computing is to
>> have the source code for the software available, and to be not encumbered
>> by patents."
>
> In reference to operating systems, yes.
>

So then you don't believe that users of applications are entiled to the same
"real freedom" as users of applications? Why? Let me guess: Because that way
you can continue to free ride off the labor of open source os developers
while enjoying exlusive rights to the proprietary applications you develop
yourself?

Thank you for putting your hypocrisy on public display.

>> So, I "merely" want to ask now, for the last time: How does your own
>> software business measure up to that standard?
>
> As I don't develop operating systems, comparing my business to that
> standard
> is like comparing apples and oranges.
>

Yeah, right. Apples are entitled to "real freedom" and oranges are not. Got
it.

> Note that I was talking specifically about freedom of choice.

More conditions?

> All of my
> customers have the freedom of choice to do business with me or not. I do
> not force them to. THAT is freedom.
> --

Sounds like a winning mission statement.