The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:01PM
by Anonymous Coward
on Monday June 22 2015, @02:01PM (#199410)
Any commercial or non-free software MUST follow certain software quality regulations.
Releasing software is free speech, and needing to pay for it doesn't change that, so I would consider this a violation of the first amendment even if the courts don't see it that way. Besides, what if it's Free Software *and* commercial? Or what if it's just some random amateur trying to sell some software? These mythical regulations will only vastly increase the cost of making software, and since the topic is about phone apps, that's utterly fucking absurd. The little guy who is learning on the job and developing and selling their own software wouldn't even have a chance.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 22 2015, @02:01PM
Any commercial or non-free software MUST follow certain software quality regulations.
Releasing software is free speech, and needing to pay for it doesn't change that, so I would consider this a violation of the first amendment even if the courts don't see it that way. Besides, what if it's Free Software *and* commercial? Or what if it's just some random amateur trying to sell some software? These mythical regulations will only vastly increase the cost of making software, and since the topic is about phone apps, that's utterly fucking absurd. The little guy who is learning on the job and developing and selling their own software wouldn't even have a chance.
Not all software is of equal importance, either.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 23 2015, @01:24AM
Source code should be covered as free speech, but I fail to see how compiled binaries would be.