On Sat, Dec 15, 2007 at 01:52:26PM -0600, Travers Buda wrote: > However, if someone is well-versed in the GPL philosophy and rhetoric, > it is understood what is meant when I say free and when I say open.
but Richard is not talking to people who are well versed in GPL philosophy. he is talking to people who understand freedom in the dictionary sense. believe me, this is what I first believed Richard was about, the dictionary definition of freedom. after actually reading the GPL, it became obvious that he is not about real freedom, but about restrictions. Richard Stallman is a gutless politician who uses strong words to push his opinions and goals, confusing otherwise well intentioned people. he is gutless because he does not admit that his ramblings confuse people, that his ramblings confuse the meaning of freedom. he is pushing restrictions in the name of freedom. you can argue that restrictions are needed to protect freedom all you want, but it does not hold when we are talking about software licenses. no matter how furiously I type, my fist comes nowhere near your nose. there is no need to draw the line where my freedoms end and your freedoms begin. what license I put on something I wrote in no way endangers anyone else, because ultimately, there is the choice to completely ignore whatever it is I wrote. however, Richard's constant redifinition of well known words is quite disrespectful of language and society in general. his flailing ramblings do hit people in the nose and knock them silly. that is why, when Richard makes some statement in an arena where most people understand freedom in the disctionary sense and wish to protect it, he is attacked. because he is a hypocrit who is trying to destroy the freedom that many people understand, exercise and enjoy. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] SDF Public Access UNIX System - http://sdf.lonestar.org
