[H-GEN] Linux games are still proprietory

[Trent WADDINGTON]

[ Humbug *General* list - semi-serious discussions about Humbug and     ]
[ Unix-related topics. Posts from non-subscribed addresses will vanish. ]

On Thu, 3 Apr 2003, Robert Stanford wrote:

> On the argument of proprietry vs open source. It's like religion, it's
> like beer, it's like sex. Everyone has preferences, some create their
> own product. When they do so I feel they have the right to do what they
> please with it, this includes licensing and distribution. To force a
> point of view on an individual is not only rude but moraly wrong. To be
> able to present a point of view without fear of reprisals is a wonderful
> thing.

Heh, your argument is very much like my argument *against* proprietary
software.  You feel they have the right to do what they please with it,
but then you go on to say that forcing a point of view on an individual is
wrong.  Well then what *is* a license, if not a way of using law to force
your opinion on others?  Microsoft's opinion is that everyone should pay
them a large amount of money every time they use a piece of their
software.  Do they have the right to hold this opinion?  Sure.  Is it
moral for them to use the power of law to force this opinion on others?  I
don't think so.

But this was not really the conversation I wanted to get into here.  I was
just curious whether or not people who use Linux would actually pay hard
earned cash for a game and whether they'd feel good or bad about it as a
result.

Trent




--
* This is list (humbug) general handled by majordomo at lists.humbug.org.au .
* Postings to this list are only accepted from subscribed addresses of
* lists 'general' or 'general-post'.  See http://www.humbug.org.au/