2008/11/22 Antony Blakey antony.blakey@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