On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:35:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote: > Thufir Hawat wrote: >> >> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote: >> >> > Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's >> > state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and >> > non-commercial piracy is comparable to the difference between being >> > pregnant and a "little bit" pregnant. >> >> Who does accept the rationalization of piracy? Be specific with an >> example. > > http://www.tlug.jp/docs/rms.html > > <quote> > > HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software.
HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software. RMS: I don't call this copying "piracy", because that is a propaganda word. I don't think it is wrong to copy and share information. Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, just illegal. I think it's illegal. However, these warez types, apparently, don't impact, to pick a company a random, Microsoft's bottom line, because they wouldn't buy the software anyhow. So, hitting some warez punk with huge fines is silly. There are also cases where Windows Genuine Advantage fails to correctly assess what is or isn't pirated software. On that note, there's a quote of Bill Gates floating around where he effectively advocates piracy of windows because, in the long run, it will help Microsoft. Piracy is more prevalent among Windows users than Linux users; often Windows users aren't even aware they're pirating. The point was that the FSF wasn't, and shouldn't, defend a company which willfully violates the law. The FSF might defend *individuals*, and make various arguments, depending on the circumstances -- which have been ignored so far. -Thufir _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
