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
>>>      
>> and
>>    
>>> 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
>> alone.
>>    
>
> 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.