Quoting Stuart: "Ultimately, the only way to categorize [Richard M. Stallman]is to recognize that he strives to always be moral."
Sadly, RMS has missed his goal by a wide margin, in some ways -- but I can't really blame him. It's human nature to be interested in "freedom" whenever it suits your beliefs, and not interested in it when you disagree w/ it's consequences. Real freedom means that, when you create something, you have the right to do with it what you please. This includes burying it in the sand or charging outrageous fees for it's use. RMS doesn't think that you, as a creator, ought to have the right to choose what to do with your creation. He's decided that he has the moral authority to dictate to you what you should do -- he does this in the name of "public good," but (again) he's decided that he has the authority to determine what is in the public good. (Personally I think he may have a bit of a "god" complex.) If you're interested in _real_ freedom, you have to realize that even means freedom for (gasp) Microsoft to do with their products what they choose. (Now, when you begin to use your market share to unfairly manipulate your competition, that's another story -- and don't even get me started on the idea that you can patent software processes. . .) I have to admire RMS's passion, misdirected though it may be in some ways. We owe a lot to the effort he has put in over the years. But we have to be responsible in defense of freedom -- even when that means disagreeing with an ally. If you don't like what Microsoft does, use your freedom to create/support/choose a competing company/product -- but recognize is even for people/groups with whom we disagree. I know some of my UUG friends will disagree with me. I fully support their freedom so to do. :) Dave ____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
