Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard <randyhoward@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 19:21:32 GMT
Chris Sonnack wrote
(in article <ouhug1lodu0nbbecq84em4ujert1lh4mkc@xxxxxxx>):
> Arthur J. O'Dwyer writes:
>
>> Oh, Stallman isn't against /working/. He's against /non-free software/.
>> In the same way, most people aren't against /entrepreneurism/. They're
>> only against /kidnapping/. If someone says, "But I'm a kidnapping
>> entrepreneur! It's what I do for a living! You can't deny me my right to
>> work!", we'd find it rightly ridiculous and offensive. How is the
>> situation any different with paid programmers, *once you accept* (or
>> agree to take as given) that non-free programs are morally wrong?
>
> Which is where the whole argument falls to pieces. It is possible to
> construct a moral argument against the act of kidnapping. I see no
> possible moral argument against the act of writing a program and
> then selling that program to someone who wants it.
>
> The idea that software should be free, because it's a tool is, at best,
> naive.
Now he's going to tell you that you have no morals, if he holds
to form.
I called the idea childish and without knowledge of economics,
but naive is another way of putting it.
--
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)
.
- References:
- GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Joe Butler
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Randy Howard
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Arthur J. O'Dwyer
- Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- From: Chris Sonnack
- GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Prev by Date: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Next by Date: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Previous by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Next by thread: Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|