Hacker News new | comments | show | ask | jobs | submit login

Can we just skip the debate over the definition of stealing? It's tedious and pedantic, and I don't think it's very enlightening for anyone.

I agree. I think a lot more of us would be on the same page if we accepted that the developer is being deprived of a sale.

Since that is perhaps the greatest point of contention in the debate, of course it would make the discussion a lot easier if one side simply gave up and accepted the other side's position.

I was trying to, oh well nevermind. My point is that, the developer created it. He demands that for each license that is being used, he expects a sale. And we are denying him that sale by talking about "theft" and "copy" and all that.

Yes, and plenty of other people would disagree, saying that most pirates wouldn't have bought a copy anyway, so it's not denying him a sale. This thing you want everybody to just agree on is the central matter of the debate.

Good point. I agree. But if they wouldn't have bought a copy, then they weren't entitled to using it in the first place correct?

I mean, companies generally prefer you pirate their products than their competitors. But if we're going to be absolutely critical, the company can claim "If you aren't going to pay us, you have no right to use our product. You used our product without paying us."

Yes, they weren't entitled to use it. Yet they do use it. So what to do? It's not a lost sale just because they're not entitled to use it.

>Can we just skip the debate over the definition of stealing?

Sure. But can we all agree developers are free to choose how they license their work?

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact