At 08:54 AM 2/13/2004 -0500, you wrote: >Michael Devore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> Logically this fails as a false analogy. > >Actually, it is quite sound. Every objection you raise has nothing to >do with the logic of the analogy, which is to show how restricting >your freedom can enhance everybody else's.
Actually, it's not, and my objection goes directly to the heart of your comparison. But we can move on from there as you wish. >But fine, forget driving. Pick ANY law whatsoever. By your logic, we >would be "more free" if that law did not exist; therefore, a society >with no laws is the "most free" society possible. And anybody who >claims that, say, democracy is more free than anarchy is a "zealot". >Do you honestly believe that? I'm not sure why you quoted zealot, since it isn't a word I used. Also, I carefully qualified my objections on the "fanatics" (actually I said fanatical) to those in open source advocacy who see only their viewpoint as the one true way for how source code should be handled and what free means. If the shoe doesn't fit, don't jam it on anyway and then scream foot abuse. Anarchy is more free than democracy? Yes, it is, practically by definition. It's not more desirable in my view, although it is in the view of others on the planet. In any case, you have again raised a false -- no, you didn't like that. Okay, you have a used a loaded and flawed comparison when choosing the wide-ranging political system of democracy with wide Western programmer appeal, versus the public domain and open source issue. I can practically hear people singing national anthems in the background while they wave their flag fabric of choice when you rolled that one out. >In your other reply, you wrote, "GPL forces ABC developer to do things >he or she may not want to do. That, in a nutshell, is not giving your >ABC developer full freedom." Well, duh. Everybody has to do things >he or she may not want to do. (Do you pay taxes?) Nobody has "full >freedom". In particular, you do not have the freedom to violate MY >RIGHTS. The GPL authors believe that modifying and sharing >information is a natural right, like breathing or the freedom of >speech. You may disagree with them, but that does not mean they are >irrational zealots. What is this MY RIGHTS stuff? Here you are pumping out source code for others to use and claim you retain rights to it, yet magically that self-same source code is more free than software which doesn't claim YOUR RIGHTS. If you can't see the contradiction in that simple statement, well duh back to you. >In this view, the GPL states simply, "You may use my code for anything >you like, but not to deprive other people of their freedom." Which I >happen to think is a good thing, and I am glad that FreeDOS is >licensed under the GPL. GPL is infinitely better than a closed style of licensing for these type of projects. I'll give you that. Heck, I'll give anybody that. As a compromise between public domain and closed source, GPL is closer to public domain in form, function, and style. ------------------------------------------------------- SF.Net is sponsored by: Speed Start Your Linux Apps Now. Build and deploy apps & Web services for Linux with a free DVD software kit from IBM. Click Now! http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=1356&alloc_id=3438&op=click _______________________________________________ Freedos-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freedos-devel
