Sorry, back to list, public debate. On Dec 14, 2007 11:51 AM, David H. Lynch Jr. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > michael hamerski wrote: > > > >> In > >> other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't > >> exist. > >> > > > > And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the > > very right to exist. > We attempt to deny slavery the right to exist, or polio, or smallpox.
How does using non-free software, by your definition anything none GPL'ed I gather, bring actual physical harm to anyone anywhere? You keep on using these grand words to shore up legitimacy for your little crusade. It doesn't work. > > You do not have to accept his definitions of good and evil, or > anything else, > but once you do, the rest works fairly well, Once you accept Scientology as factual, it works pretty well. Ask Tom Cruise. The same is true of any belief system ever imagined. >and not only is he not > ignorant of several milenia of thought, He is if he can't see that one of the possible outcomes, if not the most probable, of his ideals is totalitarianism. As I said before, misguided at best. > but he has done a pretty good job of using the laws and principles > resulting from that to accomplish his > own purposes. > And therein lies the problem, "his own purposes", not the future of mankind, not the future of computing. and certainly not freedom. But perhaps he might like the opportunity to reply for himself. mike
