Andrew Collier wrote: > implies that sharing copies is somehow illegitimate" -
Come come andrew, that's a cheap trick - taking words out of context. Quote from the link given on that page: If you don't believe that illegal copying is just like kidnaping and murder, you might prefer not to use the word ``piracy'' to describe it. Neutral terms such as ``prohibited copying'' or ``unauthorized copying'' are available for use instead Unquote. > "As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a > proprietary program. If your friend asks to make a copy, > it would be wrong to refuse. Cooperation is more important > than copyright." - The -very- next sentence says: Quote: But underground, closet cooperation does not make for a good society. A person should aspire to live an upright life openly with pride, and this means saying ``No'' to proprietary software. Unquote. > "To release a non-free program is always ethically tainted" - > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html That's a slightly less stringent statement than stating that GNU followers "want everything to be free, regardless of reality". On the other hand, I've yet to see a valid, reasoned argument why Microsoft needs to charge such exorbitant fees for its product. The profit margins it pulls clearly show that any "R&D investment" claim is a myth. Pretty much every single penny of profit made in the computer industry is based on research which was donated by the researchers to the public good (computers themselves, the internet, the web, programming principles, C etc etc) and yet the major corporate players still insist that by profiting from others' work they are on the side of the ethically just. Geoff
