Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open ContentNetwork: Free Software P2P)

[Angel \"Java\" Lopez]

I apologize in advance my bad english.... or my misunderstanding of the
topic..... but....

> Angel \"Java\" Lopez wrote:
> >
> > Hmmm....... food particles can be shared, but not copied without
effort....
> > This is an important difference in bits and bytes....
> >
>
> Yes, which ultimately means that there should be fewer restrictions on
> copying bits and bytes because their natural inclination and function is
> to be explicitely copied in the first place.

No, the natural inclination and function is to be executed (in case of bits
and bytes of a program).

One can argued that the original intention of the producer of the bits and
bytes, was not to be freely copied (or, better, be executed). This is an
important point for me: the intention of the producer, until now, this type
of intention is supported by the law.

One can argued that sharing bits and bytes, are ethical but not legal....
well, change the law, first. The other way: change the distribution system,
like the Open Source is doing. In the music world, one band can embrace the
free copy and distribution (again, the producer , the band, decide to do in
this way) of their material, and gain fans and momentum or fame. One form of
income can be theater presentations...

But, in the Open Source, who pays the bill??

>
> That's an important physical difference, but I was referring to
> conceptual difference -- of which there is none.

Hmmm... yet conceptually.... two persons cannot eat the same sandwich....
The "sharing" is not really a "sharing".... it's a "giving"....

Angel "Java" Lopez