On Mon, 2003-09-15 at 11:21, District Webmaster wrote: > 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.)
He doesn't want to force anything on anyone. You will notice that he is opposed to laws mandating that governments use only F/OSS. He feels it is everyone's right to dictate what is done with their creation. He feels it is his right that if you want to take advantage of his labor, he gets to dictate the terms of how his software is controlled. I, obviously, agree with him. If Microsoft doesn't want to open its code, fine. If some company refuses to provide information on its architecture, fine. Just don't expect him to give them anything. If it threatens his freedom, he will find an alternative. Eventually, when enough think like him, this will be called "market force". Do you see now why binary only drivers are evil? They are more poisonous than anything Microsoft has produced. His methods are straight forward and obvious. He wants to force everyone to cooperate not by passing laws, or hiding information, but by creating a product so obviously superior that anyone would reject the alternatives. Its an uphill battle, but can be won. > 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. . .) And he recognizes that. He simply doesn't think that Microsoft should be able to use any of _his_ code without giving something back. Their own creation is their own business. You don't understand Free Software until you understand that copyleft couldn't exist without copyright. > 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 have never seen him do anything else. -- Stuart Jansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED], AIM:StuartMJansen> Interviewer: What do you think anything[sic] is still missing from the [Linux] kernel? Andrew Morton: Groupies!
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
____________________ BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
