[PD] Very large patches unstable?

Jonathan Wilkes jancsika at yahoo.com
Thu Dec 3 06:11:38 CET 2009

--- On Thu, 12/3/09, Matteo Sisti Sette <matteosistisette at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Matteo Sisti Sette <matteosistisette at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [PD] Very large patches unstable?
> To: "Jonathan Wilkes" <jancsika at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "Mathieu Bouchard" <matju at artengine.ca>, pd-list at iem.at
> Date: Thursday, December 3, 2009, 3:41 AM
> Jonathan Wilkes escribió:
> >> [...] then I must conclude, that nobody
> >> should pay for software.
> > 
> > Do you mean to say that "nobody should pay for
> _proprietary_ software?"  
> You're right, I meant:
> "nobody should be charged for using software"
> Now you can put or not the word "proprietary" and it makes
> no difference, since nobody can be charged for using FLOS
> software.

That's not true:

> >      Besides, how is it that "existence
> of bug" = "the software doesn't work?"  Buggs can exist
> without makking software inoperable, you konw.
> Well, exagerating on purpose, I said "doesn't work" not to
> mean "is inoperable" but rather "doesn't work 100% as
> expected". Even if this is very questionable, it was in
> relation to the comparison with "hardware" commercial
> products, where usually even small defects give you the
> right to have the product replaced.

But in the hardware example, you're paying money for a product, and 
(at least in the U.S.) I think your demands to have the product replaced 
that you are speaking of stem from the Uniform Commerce Code.  That's a
demand in the true sense.  With the free software examples we're talking about, you're not paying a fee to download and use the software.  There's 
certainly still a code by which people work and interact, but it's much 
more elusive and far from uniform.



More information about the Pd-list mailing list