2008/11/22 Antony Blakey <antony.blakey at gmail.com>:
>
> On 22/11/2008, at 2:41 PM, Igor Stasenko wrote:
>
>> As someone said: nobody pays a license fee to the architect who
>> designed the building each time someone entering it.
>
> In fact, you pay an architect for a design each time you build it. You can't
> reuse an architect's design without paying for it, or negotiating a license.
> The fact that you live in a house designed by an architect gives you no
> rights to the design.
>

Right, you pay for design, but nobody pays the fee for entering his
authentic house (read - get a copy).

>> So why we should
>> pay a software architect for each copy of his software?
>
> You first need to prove the applicability of this analogy. And in any case,
> given my comment above, I think this proves the opposite of what you intend.
>

How do you like the following: these words is my intellectual
property, and once you read them you have to pay $$ to me as license
fee. Ignoring this would lead to prosecution in court. :)

>> People should
>> be paid for things they do, not for mass-produced copies of their
>> creation.
>
> You would need to provide supporting argument for this assertion to be
> evaluated.
>
> Antony Blakey
> -------------
> CTO, Linkuistics Pty Ltd
> Ph: 0438 840 787
>
> Some defeats are instalments to victory.
>  -- Jacob Riis
>
>
>
>



-- 
Best regards,
Igor Stasenko AKA sig.