Simo Sorce wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-26 at 08:31 +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
>> Simo Sorce wrote:
>>> What if I have a revolutionary machine that can copy your bicycle
>>> reproduce it perfectly?
>>> Would it be theft if I come and copy yours and than go away leaving
>>> yours intact?
>> It destroys my bicycle rental business, which is based on my unique
>> bicycle-for-fourteen design. Go clone your own bike and leave mine
> I understand your reasoning, since the invention of the light bulb
> destroyed candle makers business I think we should go back and forbid
> the use of light bulbs, it hurt their business after all.
The light bulb makers used their own brains to invent something new,
without stealing the candlemaker's bright ideas. That's called
progress. The bicycle cloners invented nothing (except the cloning
machine; they could be rich unless someone cloned _that_), they took
someone else's painstaking research and painful field trials, and sell
it or use it as if it's their own, damaging those who invented the
bicycle. If you're a software developer, you can probably appreciate
the amount of effort that goes into producing software. That effort has
value. Allowing anyone to copy it reduces that value.
> This argument is soo trollish.
> The rest is reiteration of the same concept, which shows you didn't even
> put effort in understanding what I am talking about, so there is no
> point in arguing again. Thread Closed.
We can close a thread by agreeing to disagree, but hurling insults and
saying "Thread Closed" is not the way to do it. I didn't insult you,
and I did read what you've written quite carefully. Even if you think
there's no inherent value in a clonable entity, you'll find there is
much value in carrying out a conversation in an adult manner.
Do not meddle in the internals of kernels, for they are subtle and quick to panic.