On 12/16/07 9:20 PM, Richard Stallman wrote:
No No NO. You miss the point. GNU is fighting for their view
of freedom. Not *real* freedom.
The GNU Project campaigns to give software users these four essential
freedoms:
Freedom 0: the freedom to run the program as you wish.
Freedom 1: the freedom to study the source code and change it
so it does what you wish.
Freedom 2: the freedom to distribute exact copies to others
when you wish.
Freedom 3: the freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions
to others when you wish.
That's what I think is real freedom in regard to using a program.
Whether or not you agree, at least you know what my views are.
1/2/3 are capping the the freedoms of the source, the programmer, the creator
of programs.
If a programmer has a bright idea he should be able to choose to give it away
or make money with it, which gives her/him even more freedoms.
Richards idea's of "freedom" mean slavery for precisely the creators. Without
those there wouldn't be software at all.
Besides that, I still think it's extremely impolite to give something away
with something unnecessary attached to it, in this case DRM in pure form.
So it's what you give priority, the individual (creator) or the group (that
doesn't create in general).
I do agree with Richard that dependency by the group should be adressed. I
would like to propose a law that makes that software that is isn't supported
any more for x years should become BSD licensed.
The moment you let people use your software you make people dependent, that's
OK as long as it's a free choice with service. But if the service stops the
user can become a kind of enslaved and that's not OK
+++chefren
