Not in this case.

” Why should taxpayers have to pay twice what they paid to produce the product?”

Because in this case, its the law.

To be perfectly blunt, I do not give a crap about what you have done. I care about what you have said.

You have also said that you have a right to “Breath free software”.

You have also said that “the world does not owe a few a living”.

You also lecture us at length about the joys of sharing for the betterment of the world, as if such an act is the only way to behave.

Here’s a newsflash Pog. IF a person or a company creates an application that has value, decides that they wish to reap the benefits of that application. It is their right under the law to protect that application and sell licenses for its use on their terms. If it just so happens that that particular application is useful to you, you have exactly two options: 1) accept the vendors terms, or 2) do without the benefits.

Yet you continue to advocate in effect that these people be deprived of their property rights under the law because YOU think that that property should be for the good of all and by extension yourself, by right.

You would in effect, require all software creators to share whether they want to or not. Why? So that you can share the benefits of their work gratis as you do the generosity of FOSS producers.

It is that stated insistence on getting something for nothing that makes you a parasite in my eyes.

So, it’s perfectly reasonable that taxpayers get to use what they paid for is it not? Why should taxpayers have to pay twice what they paid to produce the product?

A typical alibi argument. You conveniently left out the part where you say who produces said product. If it’s an institution of the state — the same state who’s responsible for protecting the free market — then you have a problem. Or wouldn’t you say so, too?

What’s more, under Swiss law, even if an institution of the state is given permission to act as a commercial service provider, it can only do so if it charges for said service(s) in order to recoup their costs. But the Swiss Federal Supreme Court had their software purely financed by tax-payer money. Hence, forbidden cross-subsidization.

OK. Here goes…
“Article 94 Principles of Economic Order

4 Deviations from the principle of economic freedom, particularly measures aimed against the competition are permissible only if they are provided in the Federal Constitution or established by cantonal shelf rights.”

The Swiss government did nothing to eliminate competition. The business was still able to offer to sell whatever it wanted and even to give it away. BTW, that’s a translation from German by Google so not likely to be correct. However the plain meaning of the translation does not show a violation. Producing a product is legitimate in a free economy.

Again an incredibly dumb sentence from you. Childish and immature. Nobody wrote anything about contract killers, nobody wrote anything about the state not being allowed to intervene at all.

Read the Swiss Constitution before you spout more nonsense. It’s there. Article 94.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/101/a94.html

The Swiss government shared the Swiss government’s property.

It wasn’t the Swiss government, it was the Swiss Federal Supreme Court.

They did nothing to prevent any business from working for a living.

Yes, they did. Because there was a market the Supreme Court intruded on. Weblaw complained because at the time they were negotiating with some Swiss cantonal courts about adopting their software. The deals all fell through because the Supreme Court suddenly entered the market with its for-free tax-financed solution, thereby competing unfairly. What’s more, Swiss law forbids administrative units (of the state) to become commercial service providers, unless a law allows them to.

http://www.admin.ch/ch/d/sr/611_0/a41.html

In particular that business could continue to sell licences, service contracts, training etc.

That doesn’t change the fact that the Supreme Court intruded on the free market without any legal basis.

So, it’s illegal for the state to mess with whatever business does? I’d guess you think the state should leave contract killers alone too. The Swiss government shared the Swiss government’s property. They did nothing to prevent any business from working for a living. In particular that business could continue to sell licences, service contracts, training etc.

I have produced a lot of things in my life. I am not a parasite. Most of the software I use is used with the permission of the authours. The rest I made myself. Recently, I have reflected on what I have done in my life. The old homestead is an example. The little woman and I designed and built it from swamp to beautiful property with mature trees we planted. It was hard work over a decade and more. I have worked hard at whatever I have done and I have done many difficult and challenging things including teaching. I have done things ranging from physical labour in heat and cold to purely theoretical thinking with little practical application. I have done all these things for my satisfaction, not yours, oldman. I am not a parasite.

Sharing is great when it is voluntary pog. But when people begin to take others generosity for granted and begin to insist that theyhave some right to what is being shared, that is something quite different.

And imho you have crossed that line many times in your blogging.

That is why i referred to you as a parasite.

I have been to Switzerland for a few days. They are perfectly normal people and love to share. Niklaus Wirth shared Modula-2 for RT-11 with me. I gave him a new box of 8 inch floppies and he gave me a used box with the Modula-2 system I needed to write a control system for King Faisal Specialist Hospital in Riyadh. He was Swiss and shared. Neat, eh? So, what makes you think there’s a law against sharing in Switzerland?

The first part of that sentence may be a valid assertion, the second in this case (sharing the software) is a violation of the swiss constitutions, and all of the personal bloviation is not going to change that fact.