> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Behalf Of Richard Fish > Sent: Friday, September 29, 2006 4:20 PM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [gentoo-amd64] Re: How To Play WMV (thread drift - > slaveryware) > > > On 9/29/06, Bob Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source > > provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and > > women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is > > meant to convey. > > No, but that is *my* opinion. However Duncan has stated previously > that, while he probably wouldn't be willing to die to defend his > freedom regarding open source software, that he _should_ be willing to > do so.
That is a very crucial difference, and deserves not to be glossed over. *Should* and *is* are two very different things. Men and women *have* actually died to protect our freedom, to equate something that isn't actually worth that ultimate price with the word, frankly, cheapens the word. >So by your standard, *his* use of those terms is really not > all that far fetched. See above. > I do agree that the terms are very strong..much stronger than my > feelings on the subject, which is why I do not use them. But you > really should read what Duncan has said previously on this [1]. His > feelings are very strong on the subject...strong enough to justify his > use of these terms IMO. Feelings don't change the meanings of words, and meanings are not dependent upon the feelings/perspective of the person using them. -- Regards Bob Young -- [email protected] mailing list
