On Mon, 1 Oct 2001, Russell Nelson wrote: > This is a very good summary.
See? I'm not out to demonize you :) > The FSF argues that, without the social/ethical committment to free > software, their committment to open source changes like the wind. Well, more accurately (IMO), the FSF argues that the pragmatic argument is not as unassailable, and thus not so constant, as the social/ethical commitment. Put another way, pragmatism is founded upon the ability of the user to adequately (or inadequately, if I were to argue open source were not pragmatic ;) weigh costs and benefits. An idealistic social/ethical stance is not so constrained. -- Matthew Weigel Research Systems Programmer [EMAIL PROTECTED] ne [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
