10 ms·

"If you write great code..." Sorry, but I nearly spat my drink all over my keyboard at that sentence. This from the man who a decade ago used all his influence

"If you write great code..." Sorry, but I nearly spat my drink all over my keyboard at that sentence. This from the man who a decade ago used all his influence to fight tooth and nail against the notion of sharing knowledge and code for the benefit of mankind instead of profit, and didn't blink at screwing over developing countries in this particular area to increase his profits I'm sure he means well and does great things these days, but this is pushing it a bit.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago
Okay... So, Selling code you wrote == Preventing sharing of knowledge.
- bowlofpetunias 13y ago
  No. But keeping the code you wrote a locked up secret and trying to discredit and destroy anyone that doesn't do the same is.
  - cscurmudgeon 13y ago
    I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?
    - teddyh 13y ago
      If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? Would I not be mean in denying him? If I would, then would you not be immoral for coercing me to be mean to my friend? That, in essence, is the argument. You could argue that your business model requires me, i.e. all your customers, to agree not to give their friends (or anyone else) copies. But the world does not owe you a living. If your business model requires you to ask people to behave badly towards their friends, then it is destroying the social fabric of society, and you could rightly be called immoral. Anyway, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html if you truly want to read more.
      - gress 13y ago
        What's your definition of 'need'? If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property. We can make software through our own efforts, but we cannot make land, or other natural resources. You may wish to trade your time to provide support for free software to powerful corporations, but that seems like a grim vision of what's possible for humanity.
        teddyh 13y ago
        > What's your definition of 'need'? You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense. > If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account. It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society. > By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
        gress 13y ago
        The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'. You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion. What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.
gsk 13y ago
Of course, it's quite important that you are not made to spit on your keyboard. Shame on Bill Gates.
jodrellblank 13y ago
If you are "sure" he means well when he says this, how is it pushing anything even slightly?
fhd2 13y ago
That's certainly pushing it too far. His "I don't recall" crap (and the downright lying in the judge's face) in 1998 threw the web a decade back. And that's just one horrible thing of many he did to technology.
outside1234 13y ago
people can change too. its not impossible. i really do believe in this case that Bill Gates' heart is in the right place.

cscurmudgeon 13y ago

Okay... So, Selling code you wrote == Preventing sharing of knowledge.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago
No. But keeping the code you wrote a locked up secret and trying to discredit and destroy anyone that doesn't do the same is.
- cscurmudgeon 13y ago
  I am curious. Can you be more specific? If I am making my living writing software, and if you buy a copy of it and make it available to potential customers, why is it immoral to ask you not to do so?
  - teddyh 13y ago
    If I have a copy of some information or software, and I can easily copy it to my friend, and my friend needs it, why should I deny him? Would I not be mean in denying him? If I would, then would you not be immoral for coercing me to be mean to my friend? That, in essence, is the argument. You could argue that your business model requires me, i.e. all your customers, to agree not to give their friends (or anyone else) copies. But the world does not owe you a living. If your business model requires you to ask people to behave badly towards their friends, then it is destroying the social fabric of society, and you could rightly be called immoral. Anyway, see https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html if you truly want to read more.
    - gress 13y ago
      What's your definition of 'need'? If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property. We can make software through our own efforts, but we cannot make land, or other natural resources. You may wish to trade your time to provide support for free software to powerful corporations, but that seems like a grim vision of what's possible for humanity.
      - teddyh 13y ago
        > What's your definition of 'need'? You're being weird. I'm using the word in its normal sense. > If your belief system relies on not compensating other people's hard work, then it is destroying the social fabric of society. Work does not intrinsically need to be compensated. The world does not owe you a living. It is up to you to do work that actually deserves compensation. It will not do to complain that everyone is using your work in ways you did not intend; it is for you to find a business model which takes the actions of people into account. It is also your duty as a member of society to engage in actions which does not, on the whole, damage society. > By not acknowledging software as property, you are entrenching the power of those who control other forms of property Perhaps. But this does not leave you destitute; property is not the only form of wealth. You have the ability to work, which you can sell. You do not need to go the roundabout way of working to create software, and then create this constructed form of property so you can sell this new form of “property”. You can just as easily sell your labor directly.
        gress 13y ago
        The normal sense of 'need' is that a person will die without something. You might be thiking of the word 'want'. You keep saying 'the world does not owe you a living' as though it means something relevant to this discussion. What gives you the right to decide what duties and actions damage society? I think you are damaging society by trying to destroy developers rights over the software they create.

gsk 13y ago

Of course, it's quite important that you are not made to spit on your keyboard. Shame on Bill Gates.

jodrellblank 13y ago

If you are "sure" he means well when he says this, how is it pushing anything even slightly?

fhd2 13y ago

That's certainly pushing it too far. His "I don't recall" crap (and the downright lying in the judge's face) in 1998 threw the web a decade back. And that's just one horrible thing of many he did to technology.

outside1234 13y ago

people can change too. its not impossible. i really do believe in this case that Bill Gates' heart is in the right place.