3 ms·

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. I can produce a binary of OS X or Windows right now by ripping the iso and then hitting ctrl-C and crtl-V, but the

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. I can produce a binary of OS X or Windows right now by ripping the iso and then hitting ctrl-C and crtl-V, but their license makes it illegal for me to hack it or to redistribute it. Are you talking about the cost to pay them for a source license? It's true that if they even sell one at all the cost is going to be astronomical. This isn't a real cost or an issue of ownership, it's a protectionist monopoly.

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yes, for a (full, four freedoms) source license. I'm equating being able to compile source code into binaries with owning the means of production, where "owning" means "controlling" (which is what it usually means anyway).
- spacelizard 13y ago
  I don't think that is a reasonable distinction. Anyone who has a copy to the source code can pretty easily compile it. The "means of production" in the analogy you're drawing is the compiler, and the source code is the instructions on how to operate the compiler. The big social problem that people are trying to tackle isn't access to compilers, it's access to those instructions. We've gotten to the point where most programs are written in common languages, and most common languages have free (as in freedom) compilers, interpreters, runtimes, etc. It's true that some people have definitely tried to write programs in their own languages with their own secret compilers just to make things even more difficult for potential copyright infringers, but thankfully that practice is not common because it has way more drawbacks than it does advantages.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Oh, I didn't mean "having a compiler" by "being able to compile source code into binaries". I meant having source code, having a compiler, and having a machine that will run the binaries you produce.

3 ms·

I'm not sure what it is you're trying to say. I can produce a binary of OS X or Windows right now by ripping the iso and then hitting ctrl-C and crtl-V, but the

by spacelizard 13y ago

foobarbazqux 13y ago
Yes, for a (full, four freedoms) source license. I'm equating being able to compile source code into binaries with owning the means of production, where "owning" means "controlling" (which is what it usually means anyway).
- spacelizard 13y ago
  I don't think that is a reasonable distinction. Anyone who has a copy to the source code can pretty easily compile it. The "means of production" in the analogy you're drawing is the compiler, and the source code is the instructions on how to operate the compiler. The big social problem that people are trying to tackle isn't access to compilers, it's access to those instructions. We've gotten to the point where most programs are written in common languages, and most common languages have free (as in freedom) compilers, interpreters, runtimes, etc. It's true that some people have definitely tried to write programs in their own languages with their own secret compilers just to make things even more difficult for potential copyright infringers, but thankfully that practice is not common because it has way more drawbacks than it does advantages.
  - foobarbazqux 13y ago
    Oh, I didn't mean "having a compiler" by "being able to compile source code into binaries". I meant having source code, having a compiler, and having a machine that will run the binaries you produce.