Hacker News Reader

Comment by nirvana | Hacker News Reader

>We may be not entitled to demand people to produce things for our benefit, but we're certainly entitled to demand the freedom to do what we want with already produced things.

The only difference between those two example is temporal. I don't think that difference makes a difference.

Do you have the right to demand that people who have already produced some software, give it away for free and never be allowed to charge for it?

View on HN

They can charge for the software. What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product.

No one can say this tool must be used in this way so we make money. If they need to make money off the tool, they should be charging for it in some way.

>What he's talking about is if you produce a thing, no matter how you produce it, you have the right to determine what you want to do with that product.

The thing produced here is a derivative work that contains Apple created code and content.

Taking your words and changing the context produces this:

"if you produce a [some software], no matter how you produce it, [or who elses code you include with it.] you have the right to determine what [license agreement you use]."

See how that doesn't work?

So Microsoft should own the rights to distribute Harry Potter because it was composed with Word? After all, J.K. Rowling surely benefited from Word's spell checker.

In the UK and USA, yes you do have that right. Apple have the right to ignore your demand.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com