I agree fully that I would probably be willing to die for the principle or main idea of freedom of choice, aka not microsoft-monopoly. We see this in the Student's revolt in China, the freedom fighters in South Africa (the black panthers, or was that America?), and then the same thing in America: People like myself without families were willing to die for ideas that they believed strongly enough in, however people (I assume Duncan has a family) who had families were not willing to die for such ideas. Open-source software is not a cause worthy of death, but it is a representation of the cause: freedom of choice.
-Peter On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 16:20 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: > On 9/29/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source > > provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and > > women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is > > meant to convey. > > No, but that is *my* opinion. However Duncan has stated previously > that, while he probably wouldn't be willing to die to defend his > freedom regarding open source software, that he _should_ be willing to > do so. So by your standard, *his* use of those terms is really not > all that far fetched. > > I do agree that the terms are very strong..much stronger than my > feelings on the subject, which is why I do not use them. But you > really should read what Duncan has said previously on this [1]. His > feelings are very strong on the subject...strong enough to justify his > use of these terms IMO. > > -Richard > > [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.amd64/8196 -- gentoo-amd64@gentoo.org mailing list
