Re: one of the many reasons why removing non-free is a dumb idea
On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:14AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote:
> > > Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one
> > > by one. Otherwise I'm compelled to believe that Craig is largely correct.
> > His very first paragraph ascribes a belief to every last one of the non-free
> > removal supports which I believe few, if any, have ever actually held. I
> > have already pointed out that. How do you expect the message to be taken
> > seriously after that?
> because it accurately describes the behaviour of the zealots, rather than what
> they falsely claim.
No, you state that "They like to pretend that it's all proprietary
software, that it doesn't even come close to free, that source-code
isn't available." That is demonstrably false.
The fact that I disagree with you about the gravity of the non-freeness
of various non-free licenses does not mean that I am oblivious to the
fact that various licenses exist, or the differences between them.
> none of you make any distinction between proprietary software and
> almost-free software. your motiviation is obsessive ideology, not
> grounded in reality.
Which seems to this observer to be the same as yours.