Comments by "Anony Mousse" (@anon_y_mousse) on "John Deere Refuses To Respect Free Software u0026 GPL" video.

If we actually had a free market you might have a valid point.
8
@ringo8410 If that's how you meant it, then I can agree with that.
4
@PJ-om2wq Sounds like someone needs to reverse engineer it then.
2
@Winnetou17 Sounds like a good argument for maintaining old code instead of writing whole new projects from scratch. Though I'm thinking that argument will be lost on a vast many developers.
2
@paherbst524 Watch SmarterEveryDay, Destin has talked with farmers that have advanced degrees in engineering and other fields. They're not hicks like people stereotype them as.
1
@Bright_Circuit What damages when they give the code away for free? This is one of the ways in which the GPL is harmful to the community and no one will get this point.
1
@ancavalcanti92 Like I said, no one would get my point. First of all, the damages were in relation to the people who write the software. If you give away your code for free, when someone uses it in contravention of licensing terms, you don't suffer monetary damages. Second, in cases like this, breaking the licensing terms, for the farmers themselves, is perfectly valid, because as we've seen from prior case law, they have every right to do so with a piece of equipment they've bought. Taking it to a third party, i.e. not John Deere, would be perfectly reasonable and I'd recommend every farmer do that, for every repair.
1
@ancavalcanti92 This is true, and this relates directly to the farmers, but the person I was responding to was talking about the authors of the GPL'd code which would be used in violation of the license. They, as in the original authors, could not sue for damages. But it would be cool to see the farmers go after them in that way. I doubt any court would let it progress, but I'd love to see someone at least try it.
1
@Mavendow And that would be a separate issue from what was being discussed.
1
So your solution is buy another brand, which may not exist or may be vastly inferior even to the point of not meeting your needs, or what? Monopolistic behavior is illegal, and in a good world the government would be filing antitrust lawsuits left and right, but without enforcement what are we left with? Buy another brand? There's no alternative with cell phones without cutting out features you need either, so it's really not a fair argument. As much as it pains me to say it, we haven't had capitalism in the world in decades. A huge part of why is the population has increased to the point where any business can make money by doing the absolute bare minimum and then just shifting when caught out for wrongdoing. There is no competition anymore.
1
@robonator2945 That's a completely false take. When the majority of people want a feature that the company is not willing to provide and there's no alternative, as in all of the so-called competition doesn't offer it either, usually because that feature helps the consumer and they'd rather not, the people have no choice but to either do without or buy it anyway. You say do without, because it's not necessary, well hundreds of millions disagree, and reality disagrees. The forced disarmament of citizens in many countries of the world definitely disagrees. How you handle a carjacking without the ability to defend yourself or call for the help of others to defend you? Farm equipment feeds the world, which would arguably make it more important because it affects even more people. It's not ego at all, but you're strangely equating it as such, and I never said it was in your case either. The point is that there are no alternatives now and the choice is between living with garbage or dying.
1
How is it bigoted? At worst you might say it's nationalistic, but I don't think it's even that. It's economic warfare.
1
@dreamcat4 Good luck getting the government to care about the little people, especially when it's mostly run by leftists these days.
1