Levi Pearson wrote:
Any assertion that those rights *are* universal must be religious, since they clearly aren't fundamental to human nature and only God could choose to grant them universally. :P
Any assertion that those rights are *not* universal must also equally be religious. I did not say these rights are universal. I agree that they are "negotiable rights", but your statement connecting any rights definition on "human nature" and/or "God" is also religious. Don't claim it not be.
That would be mis-education based on a faulty understanding (or correct understanding and deliberate misuse) of heavily-loaded terms like 'freedom' and 'right'. Copying or modifying someone's software against their will is just as unkind, and telling them that they can't exercise their copyright is just as freedom-restricting. Telling people that everyone ought to have these four freedoms doesn't make it so. Calling people who release their software under different terms 'unkind' is just being childish and anti-social.
Developing non-free software is anti-social. It prevents me from sharing with my fellow society members. It prevents me from helping friends by adding needed features to their software for them. It prevents me from innovating on top of other's innovation.
The biggest point of the Free Software movement is to educate people of the benefits of Free Software, and the amazing opportunities these freedoms grant. This education is aimed at getting more people to demand and seize these important opportunities to enrich our societies and help our fellow man. By refusing to use non-free software we can demonstrate that people understand the importance of these freedoms and realize their value.
I know I am never going to convince you, Levi, about the important benefits of these freedoms, since you admit that you will flush them away at will.
I am done. --lonnie /* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
