Despite the "damn" and "hell" words you use, let me develop my opinion.
It is not the user rights which allow them to do whatever they want.
I totally agree that one must not violate the terms expressed by the author.
I don't like to talk about "my" creation or "yours" or somebody's. Because every creator is inspired from previous ones. Someone obviously works for a certain amount of time, but the concept of paternity is strange given all the inspiration. When I write free software, I always consider it would not have been possible to do it without libraries and other inspiration. So it's normal to give back the product of my time to the world, which gave me the base to do it.
I create things not to do business, but to make the world match my ideas and hope people will follow and improve.
And I would really be pleased if somebody has a complaint or criticism, and takes the time to "fix" it concretely by coding it, not just expressing it.
In arts (music, painting, etc) this is natural, as in science and research. About computer science, how people can improve then if it's not free software? That would be a "use it or drop it" situation, not adapted for collective improvement.
So using free software licenses, as a creator, makes the world better. The contrary doesn't make the world worse, but freezes it until free software appears. That's waste of time in a sense!
That's why I don't recommend people to use proprietary software. Because it maintains the world in a situation which is not ideal, globally.
I understand people want to make money for a living. But there are economic models quite OK with free software. We have to find a way, I mean collectively, to finance free software. That would be an improvement for society,better than defending proprietary software.
It is not the user rights which allow them to do whatever they want. I totally agree that one must not violate the terms expressed by the author.
I don't like to talk about "my" creation or "yours" or somebody's. Because every creator is inspired from previous ones. Someone obviously works for a certain amount of time, but the concept of paternity is strange given all the inspiration. When I write free software, I always consider it would not have been possible to do it without libraries and other inspiration. So it's normal to give back the product of my time to the world, which gave me the base to do it.
I create things not to do business, but to make the world match my ideas and hope people will follow and improve. And I would really be pleased if somebody has a complaint or criticism, and takes the time to "fix" it concretely by coding it, not just expressing it.
In arts (music, painting, etc) this is natural, as in science and research. About computer science, how people can improve then if it's not free software? That would be a "use it or drop it" situation, not adapted for collective improvement.
So using free software licenses, as a creator, makes the world better. The contrary doesn't make the world worse, but freezes it until free software appears. That's waste of time in a sense!
That's why I don't recommend people to use proprietary software. Because it maintains the world in a situation which is not ideal, globally.
I understand people want to make money for a living. But there are economic models quite OK with free software. We have to find a way, I mean collectively, to finance free software. That would be an improvement for society,better than defending proprietary software.
Finally pardon my English, I'm not native.