zlacker

[parent] [thread] 2 comments
1. simonh+(OP)[view] [source] 2025-12-06 16:09:58
I think commerce between individuals is a right.

Infringing on that should be justified in terms of protecting the rights of those involved, such as ensuring the quality of goods, enforcement of reasonable contract terms and such. We are involved in the process as participants in the market, and that’s the basis of any legitimacy we have to impose any rules in the market. That includes an obligation to fair treatment of other participants.

If someone writes notes, procedures, a diary, software etc for their own use they are under no obligation to publish it, ever. That’s basic privacy protection. Whether an executable was written from scratch in an assembler or is compiled from high level source code isn’t anyone else’s business. It should meet quality standards for commercial transactions and that’s it. There’s no more obligation to publish source than there is to publish design documents, early versions, or unpublished material. That would be an overreaching invasion of privacy.

replies(1): >>masfue+33
2. masfue+33[view] [source] 2025-12-06 16:33:37
>>simonh+(OP)
So restrict the obligation to companies.
replies(1): >>simonh+Mk
◧◩
3. simonh+Mk[view] [source] [discussion] 2025-12-06 18:55:18
>>masfue+33
On what justification? You just want to take their stuff, because?

People shouldn’t lose their rights to what they own, just because they do so through a company.

I do think reasonable taxation and regulation is justifiable but on the understanding that it is an imposition. There is a give and take when it comes to rights and obligations, but this seems like overreach.

[go to top]