On Fri, 2005-03-25 at 12:53 -0700, Chris Alvarez wrote: > I find it very insulting to compare Gandhi and Stallman. Gandhi was > opposing oppresion in the form of laws and violence against the Indian > people under injust dominion by the British Empire. Stallman's strive > started out of simply being upset for not being able to copy a printer > driver.
How is unjust domination by the Microsoft empire any different? Stallman's drive for free software did not start out from simply not being able to "copy a printer driver." Rather he had a printer driver that wouldn't work with his chosen OS (whatever that was, hurd perhaps? ;) and was unable to fix it---the company refused his request for the source without requiring a ridiculous sum of money. Stallman simply did not want to be beholden the company any longer. It irritated him (and irritates me) that the company would charge for the driver in the first place when the hardware had already been paid for. What good is the driver without the hardware anyway? Stallman is not out to steal anything from anyone so please don't try to insinuate that. It is interesting how many people think highly about Gandhi without really understanding anything about his personal believes and values. He was generally a good man who did great things for the Indian people. But I certainly wouldn't follow his example in personal living and righteousness, or family life. > Some of them do, but Stallman is throwing all of them in the same > sack. I don't defend M$, I like their products but they are > monopolistic sometimes and that goes against free market. Well to be fair, you and others on the list are also throwing everything into the same sack also (when it suits your point) on some issues. I'm doing it myself right now. > > I don't think that non-free software is a wrong model. I think that > both an Open Source distribution model can coexist with a non-free > one. I think that the laws of supply and demand will give the victory > to the best, regardless of the model in use. I don't think I should > feel bad for producing non-free software, but again, I doi't intend to > do so for a while. > > I would attack as vehemently any attempts to ban OSS as I would defend > those who attack non-free software. My whole point is: I don't think > that writing either OSS or non-free software is immoral. And I do > think that copyrights are OK. I think that not wanting to copyright > your stuff is OK as well. I personally don't care about copyrighting > my stuff that much, but I won't start a witchhunt against those who > do. Whether you release your software as OSS, Free software, or closed source, you can and should copyright your stuff. You are free to grant rights (freedom) to use and derive from your work. Fortunately you dont' have to explicitly do anything; copyright is automatic. Free software is copyrighted. It is simply released with the added provision that certain freedoms are guarranteed to and certain responsibilities required of the user of the work. Michael > > Chris Alvarez > > -------------------- > BYU Unix Users Group > http://uug.byu.edu/ > > The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their > author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. > ___________________________________________________________________ > List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list -- -------------------- BYU Unix Users Group http://uug.byu.edu/ The opinions expressed in this message are the responsibility of their author. They are not endorsed by BYU, the BYU CS Department or BYU-UUG. ___________________________________________________________________ List Info: http://uug.byu.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/uug-list
