> I don't quite understand it either. People who cheer the GNU GPL are > cheering for copyright protection too. Setting aside the DMCA, DRM, > lawyers, and other really obnoxious MPAA & RIAA behaviours, isn't > dling content still unethical behavior?
> If you release a program under GPL, and somebody else "pirates" it, > aren't you going to get upset? (and by pirate, I mean copy it and > release only a binary) I'll try to paraphrase part of your argument to see if I understand it. Correct me if I'm wrong. I think one of the things you are saying is that all these anti-RIAA/anti-MPAA people such as GPL supporters also support certain rules and restrictions so isn't the other side being somewhat hypocritical? I think the assumption in that question is that the only 2 choices are complete control and complete anarchy. If you don't support the MPAA and RIAA you must be an anachist so how dare you attempt to support rules such as the GPL! Those are *not* the only 2 choices. That is what the MPAA and RIAA would have you believe. That is how they like to frame the debate. Is an environmentalist by definition anti-business? Are the only 2 choices in environmentalism the following? 1. Support environmentalism and destroy US economy. 2. Support US economy and destroy environment forever. Clearly the answer is somewhere in the middle. Chris -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-list
