"Sergey V. Spiridonov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Unfortunately we do not live in the ideal world.
I'm curious what you thought of my example involving a license that pays us to give up our freedoms. Doesn't that rather directly break your method of determining the freedom of a license? And it's not even that far from reality, when you consider that you can substitute the right to use the software for money. You seem to suggest that if it's really, really useful, it's automatically free. This strikes me as a very silly conclusion, so I may be misunderstanding you. > Freedom has a value because it is convenient and useful to be > free. Nothing else. There is no need to have a freedom which can't > be used, and sometimes we can agree to give away a bit of our > freedom, which we can't (or do not want) utilize in exchange for > other values. If you really believe this (and I'm not sure you will, if you think it over for a bit) then there probably isn't much ground for discussion. Either freedom is important to you, or it isn't. If, to you, freedom is just another variety of usefulness, then you don't really understand what freedom is at all. I'd be perfectly happy to discuss that issue with you off list, but unless you value freedom in something approaching the way the rest of us here do, there's no point to discussing this on-list. -- Jeremy Hankins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint: 748F 4D16 538E 75D6 8333 9E10 D212 B5ED 37D0 0A03
