Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 07:23 pm Scott Moore wrote (in article ): > Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote: > >> >> Huh. Well, Stallman disagrees. (Similarly, some people don't see >> anything inherently immoral about pot-smoking, or abortion, or murder, >> or promoting democracy. Some people do. It's all relative, the >> post-modernists would say. Certainly it's /subjective/.) > > Most normal people do not go around equating programming with murder. We have a winner. :-) >> 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? > > Who exactly accepts this who does not need medication to keep from hurting > themselves ? Twice in one post... >>>> And if you really can't make an honest living in /free/ >>>> software design, you should go do something else for a few years. Build >>>> houses, or become a policeman, or do something else that's not >>>> intrinsically immoral.) > > And you don't, of course, see "making a living in free software" as an > oxymoron. Which is of course, why you are taking the medication. The triple crown. Congrats. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .