Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Chris Sonnack Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 12:52 pm 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. -- |_ CJSonnack _____________| How's my programming? | |_ http://www.Sonnack.com/ ___________________| Call: 1-800-DEV-NULL | |_____________________________________________|_______________________| .