.>>>> One individual's right to earn should not be by the means of
.>>>> restricting the freedom of another.
I am looking at this above lines ONLY, but I don't think it is out of
context, doing so.
A buyer of Adobe Photoshop, KNOWS UPFRONT, he can't tweak a specific lens
filter even if he wants to, because he doesn't have access to source code of
He buys it, EVEN THEN, only because, he can't do even the little that
Photoshop allows him to do, otherwise.
So, I HAVE TO REPHRASE that line, though I don't know if it is a line from
an email or a quote from some great Gnuminary.
"One individual's right to earn should not be by the means of restricting
the freedom of another.
But, when that individual earns by providing some limited freedom/ability,
when none existed originally, I don't think we should complain. We can
probably boycott their goods, holding a high-moral ground, but surely, we
What do you think?
From: ilugc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ilugc-admin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On
Behalf Of Ganesh B
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2004 10:51 AM
Subject: Re: [Ilugc] ms_advocacy | ilugc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx | /dev/null
On 29-Mar-04, at 9:58 AM, Joe Steeve wrote:
programmer to write something else. This is a restriction of the
freedom of Mr.zyx.
Now., Mr.zyx has paid for your software, and should have the freedom
to do anything with it. So., it would be a freedom restricting act if
you put him under some silly licensing terms.
One individual's right to earn should not be by the means of
restricting the freedom of another.