Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 08:21 pm

Chris Sonnack wrote
(in article <ouhug1lodu0nbbecq84em4ujert1lh4mkc@4ax.com>):

> 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)

.