4 ms·
Not a valid comparison as their work can’t be transferred. This, to me, is arguing that software should be developed for a specific customer and not distributed
by jleyank 3y ago
Not a valid comparison as their work can’t be transferred. This, to me, is arguing that software should be developed for a specific customer and not distributed further. Which probably isn’t what you’re arguing.
- Zambyte 3y agoIf I buy a house that needs work, contract that work to be done, and then sell that house with the work done, I believe I have distributed the result of that labor. With the proprietary software model, I would not be able to sell a house that I have had electrical work done under contract. That is bogus.
- jwestbury 3y agoYou're actually making the case for licensed software without free distribution here -- the plumber has worked on your house, and possibly installed parts, just as someone may work on a computer, and possibly install software. If you want, you could remove those parts and sell them to your neighbour, but then you wouldn't have them anymore. Or, you could sell the house whole, just as you could sell a computer with software installed (okay, peculiarities of licensing may make that challenging, and I'm in favour of licensing reform). But what you can't do with plumbing work is have it performed, then copy it to your neighbour's house whilst still keeping it for yourself. You can do that with free software.
- Zambyte 3y agoI don't think I am making that case.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]