this post was submitted on 16 Apr 2024
344 points (95.3% liked)
Open Source
31134 readers
294 users here now
All about open source! Feel free to ask questions, and share news, and interesting stuff!
Useful Links
- Open Source Initiative
- Free Software Foundation
- Electronic Frontier Foundation
- Software Freedom Conservancy
- It's FOSS
- Android FOSS Apps Megathread
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to the open source ideology
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
- !libre_culture@lemmy.ml
- !libre_software@lemmy.ml
- !libre_hardware@lemmy.ml
- !linux@lemmy.ml
- !technology@lemmy.ml
Community icon from opensource.org, but we are not affiliated with them.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
By stealing it? You dont have to own something to steal it. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong. Lol it's a very interesting take but I like the spirit of it... And it made me laugh. Cool ๐
Using the first entry for
steal
on the English wiktionary:So, if you can't actually own stuff, you can't (by definition) steal it.
I get your point, and this more of an ^AcKsHuALly^ type of argument, but it's an fun way of begging the question of what "I own this" means in today's society.
I love a friendly debate ๐:
The statement says How can you steal something that the customer cannot own?. You can definitely steal it if "you" aren't the customer. And you can steal it from a "customer" even if the customer doesn't own it and someone else does. And you can steal if even if you are the customer, because you aren't the owner. The only time you can't steal it is if you are the owner, because you own it.
The definition of "steal" you mention seems to be proving the point I'm making. Something can be stolen if the person stealing it isn't the owner, which is the case in the first three examples I mentioned above.
The statement is an odd play on words and loaded with assumptions that are left up to the reader, which is why it's super weird to use it to try to prove the point the author was trying to make.