Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> writes: > On 2011-05-16, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > "Littlefield, Tyler" <ty...@tysdomain.com> writes: > > > >> I'm putting lots of work into this. I would rather not have some > >> script kiddy dig through it, yank out chunks and do whatever he > >> wants. I just want to distribute the program as-is, not distribute > >> it and leave it open to being hacked. > > > > How do these arguments apply to your code base when they don't apply > > to, say, LibreOffice or Linux or Python or Apache or Firefox? > > One obvious way that those arguments don't apply is that the OP didn't > put lots of work into LibreOffice, Linux, Python, Apache or Firefox
Yet the copyright holders *did* put lots of effort into those works respectively. So the arguments would apply equally well; which is to say, they don't. > > How is your code base going to be harmed by having the source code > > available to recipients, when that demonstrably doesn't harm > > countless other code bases out there? > > The owner of something is free to determine how it is distributed -- > he doesn't have any obligation to prove to you that some particular > method of distribution is harmful to him or anybody else. Note that I didn't say anything about obligation or harm to persons. I asked only about the code base and the distribution thereof. In the meantime, Tyler has come back to us with arguments that *do* differentiate between the above cases and his own. So thanks, Tyler, for answering the questions. -- \ “Of course, everybody says they're for peace. Hitler was for | `\ peace. Everybody is for peace. The question is: what kind of | _o__) peace?” —Noam Chomsky, 1984-05-14 | Ben Finney -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
