- LIST OF INKSCAPE TUTORIALS BY LOGOSBYNICK IN DATE ORDER SOFTWARE
- LIST OF INKSCAPE TUTORIALS BY LOGOSBYNICK IN DATE ORDER FREE
Ok, maybe if you mortgaged your house, you might. > I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. That's why you're not going to get public support for such a change. I know technically there are theoretically alternate funding models, and even a very few examples of successful projects, but the barriers to entry and risks of such models are in practice so severe that it would still be economically and culturally devastating.
LIST OF INKSCAPE TUTORIALS BY LOGOSBYNICK IN DATE ORDER SOFTWARE
Investment in media production including software development, writing books, creating music, making movies and TV would utterly collapse.
LIST OF INKSCAPE TUTORIALS BY LOGOSBYNICK IN DATE ORDER FREE
However where there's a creative or economic value, as with a novel or software, the fact is treating sharing it as a free speech right would be economically catastrophic. Some forms of information should be shareable and in the open, where that is in the public interest, sure. I understand you disagree on that, but for me there's both a moral and an economic dimension to the question. I think it's legitimate to extend those protections to software. Our society (I mean the west generally but other societies too) have for a very long time decided that ownership rights can be legitimately exercised on some information in some circumstances, for periods of time. It's legitimate for the state to wield the powers delegated to it by the people. >the issue for me anyway - is whether it is legitimate for the state to police the population to the extent of preventing the sharing of information, including software I meant buy as in pay for the right to use it. I think you'r interpreting what I said as buying all rights to the software outright or something. Unless you think almost no software is worth it, or you're a billionaire. Just musing after a beer and some Red Vines - I welcome any criticism or kindred spirits. I'd imagine a forked FOSS version of Win2k, VB6, or maybe the late-2000s Google indexer (bit of a stretch) would be quite successful today, for example. The problem mostly stays solved, and anyone can resume the work if they are willing and able. With FOSS, the software never really goes away. If the company goes away or the IP otherwise becomes inactive, that's it. I feel that any problem solved exclusively by proprietary software is only solved temporarily and for a tiny percentage of the world population. My claim is simply that FOSS tools are important as a backstop/foundation. There is a feature count/learning curve price for this, I will readily admit. Opaque bug submission channels, limited to no access to the engineers building the thing Misfeatures such as nag screens, dark patterns, engagement boosters (time wasters), unclear data collection. Corporate bankruptcy/"amazing journey"/sales/pivots/mergers/etc ruining your investment Forced upgrades breaking workflows or removing features Unexplained bans/AI moderation/guilt by association/becoming subject to laws not relevant to your jurisdiction Effectively forced TOS or pricing changes
Locking you out of creative uses of the software - either our way or the highway Developed-country-centric pricing models/heavy focus on newer hardware. The sword of Damocles that is renting software. I'm not necessarily talking about welcoming communities here - respect can take the form of, say, not engaging in hostilities like: FOSS tools are often worse from a UI/UX perspective, sure, but I contend that they usually provide something consumer commercial tools often don't: respect for users. Amazing, just two days ago I was searching for a polar arrangement tool in Inkscape.
0 kommentar(er)
