[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Old Index]
RE: GPL version 4
Haven't these arguments been made before? Yet the FSF, Open Source and
proprietary developers still exist. There are obvious advantages in each
As a developer involved in many types of software I can appreciate what each
solution has to offer.
Isn't it fruitless to debate this ideology, again and again and again... We
will choose the approach that best suits our particular situation and
Let's not instigate another war over ground that has already been "carpet
> -----Original Message-----
> From: netbsd-users-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost
> [mailto:netbsd-users-owner%NetBSD.org@localhost]On Behalf Of Aleksej Saushev
> Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2008 1:34 AM
> To: netbsd-users%netbsd.org@localhost
> Cc: linux-kernel%vger.kernel.org@localhost;
> fedora-list%redhat.com@localhost; freebsd-questions%freebsd.org@localhost
> Subject: Re: GPL version 4
> Richard M Stallman <rms%gnu.org@localhost> writes:
> > Freedom means having control of your own life. Using a proprietary
> > program means giving the developer power over you. "More choice" in
> > surrendering your freedom is not more freedom, and it does not make a
> > better world.
> "Breathing the air means giving anyone else power over you."
> Even with proprietary programs you still have the control of
> your life: noone forces you to use this or that program.
> > It will just result in him producing a poorer, more expensive, less
> > compatible product -- or none at all.
> > Ideally, it will be none at all. A proprietary program is a negative
> > contribution to society.
> Oh, really. Programs are dearer to your heart than people.
> What you say sounds luddist: it is better to force everyone to
> perform routine tasks manually instead of saving time by minor
> investment in development of tools.
> > One less proprietary program means one less
> > job of replacement on our list, and it could leave the field open for
> > a free program to succeed.
> You speculate on what it could or could not, yet many people
> prefer to look at what is and what is not.
> > Just think how much better off we would be
> > if Microsoft Windows had never been developed.
> How? How exactly? I don't believe you, show me facts.
> > But suppose he does it anyway, without using our code. That could be
> > just the handicap that enables a competing free program to be superior
> > in convenience, just as it always is in ethics.
> Put ethics aside, it is subjective and differs from place to place.
> In which way your "free" "replacement" is more convenient than
> Adobe Photoshop?
> How do you explain simple fact, that photographers prefer the latter,
> even when they tried your so-called "free" so-called "replacement".
Main Index |
Thread Index |