Rob Myers wrote: > I am not going to argue against the power of community, but Apple and > bus companies and J. Random Enclosurer are not in the "community" as > socially rather than legally constituted.
See, this is what I dislike - correction, this is one of several things I dislike - about share-alike and, in particular, the Stallmanite view of things. It's enormously, enormously insular. Stallmanites are not interested in "freedom for all", they're interested in "freedom for people like me", with the proviso, of course, that you are free to become like them (have no kids and live cheaply, right?). Almost as if to reinforce it, they capitalise the F in freedom; it's no longer a global, multifaceted concept, it's a narrowly-focused proper noun, a brand-name almost. And you're doing the same here - painting people who are different to you as "Enclosurers" who shouldn't be given any slack, because they're Not Like You. Meanwhile Apple, of course, are about the only people who have taken an open-source operating system and made something with it that normal people can use. That, I would submit, is an equally worthwhile form of freedom in itself - freedom to use a computer to do stuff without having to be an übergeek. Who says Apple are not in the community? Who defines what the community is? </rant> Of course, none of us are ever going to agree on any of this. :) cheers Richard _______________________________________________ legal-talk mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
