Raul Miller wrote: > > On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 01:18:12AM -0500, Paul Serice wrote: > > This is not some random quote that I'm taking out of context. There is > > a logical nexus here. > > Sure, but you're discussing an informal essay as if it were a legal > document. > > Why?
Well, I guess it's a couple of things. First I feel betrayed. Given all the comments I've received about Stallman's reasonably well-publicized philosophy I suppose I have no one to blame but myself. Second, I suppose I've had a hard time getting all of this into words, and I appreciate the patients of most people in helping me to express this. Third, I agree that the computer break-in thing is a little over the top and not the best example. In retrospect I was struggling to say something like: Maybe I'm late to realize it, but I feel, with good reason, that Stallman is not trustworthy. So in the same sense that I would want to look over source code from an untrusted source, given the prevalence of the GPL, I wonder if it has been analyzed for trojan horses or legally analogous beasts. I mean, just what _exactly_ do we allow to happen to our computer and our privacy by putting software on our systems with a copyright from an untrusted source? If you trust Stallman, then it's no big deal, but if you think he would break any law to have his own peace of mind, then its worrisome. I guess my answer is that with all the smart people on the internet, and most of them not as gullible as myself, that they have looked this GPL thing over and have decided right message, wrong messenger. I am not a troll -- just a little paranoid, Paul Serice
