3 ms·
On one hand I agree with you, if I can build the same software you can, I should be able to sell it all the same. On the other, if there's no copyright or simil
by Etheryte 2y ago
On one hand I agree with you, if I can build the same software you can, I should be able to sell it all the same. On the other, if there's no copyright or similar, what stops theft of source code and an identical program with fresh branding?
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago> I should be able to sell it all the same No, you should be compensated for your labor. This does not entail a market product.
- Etheryte 2y agoSo only the first company to make a search engine should be able to sell a search engine? I don't see how this stance makes any sense.
- thot_experiment 2y agoI assume op means you should be compensated through a method other than pretending software is scarce and trying to assign value to it through a system that relies on equivocating scarcity with value.
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoNo, selling a search engine never made any sense to begin with. Services should be publicly funded and freely accessible. As a bonus we wouldn't have to put up with spam on every site on the internet.
- Etheryte 2y agoKagi sells a search engine and it's hugely popular. They're supported by the people who buy the software, not by ads. Not selling the software is exactly what leads to the spam you hate. In similar vein, would you say all software should be given away freely?
- PittleyDunkin 2y agoI'm saying services should be publicly funded and freely accessible.
- energy123 2y agoHow will your system compensate people who write useful code if that code isn't allowed to be an excludable market product?