Re: Dangerous precedent being set - possible serious violation of the
email@example.com (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 04.12.99 in <[🔎] 19991204182425.A252@priv3.onet.pl>:
> On Sat, Dec 04, 1999 at 03:53:00PM +0200, Kai Henningsen wrote:
> > firstname.lastname@example.org (Tomasz Wegrzanowski) wrote on 02.12.99 in
> > <[🔎] 19991202221529.F410@priv3.onet.pl>:
> > > On Thu, Dec 02, 1999 at 11:48:21AM -0500, Caspian wrote:
> > > > I'm afraid this isn't about advertisement, or about the DFSG, or even
> > > > about the GPL. This is about the general trend of companies walking
> > > > all over the spirit of free software. No one is interested in "freedom
> > > > talk", as RMS puts it. Everyone's interested in filling their own
> > > > pockets.
> > >
> > > 2 hundred years ago someone said :
> > > No nation have ever gained any freedom except
> > > freedom they have gained with sword in hand
> > I doubt this was correct back then, and I *know* it is wrong today. I
> > happen to sit right next to a prominent counter example: East Germany.
> You are wrong about East Germany
> It fell when the rest of Soviet block fell
> And it feel because of state of war here in Poland 81-83, and many
> more places where people fought with their goverment.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense.
The East German regime fell because the East Germans demonstrated on the
street. Peacefully. (That's why it's often called "the peaceful
Hungary was also helpful when the Hungarian government allowed large
numbers of East Germans, who had fled into the West German embassy, to
emigrate to West Germany.
But as I recall it, the final trigger was the very obvious fakery in the
elections, which made the people suddenly decide they'd finally had
The state of war in Poland did not contribute. Nor did Gorbachev (who
tried, and made his famous remark about people who come too late).
You'll note that both Gorbachev and the Hungarian government really cannot
be called "where people fought with their government".
>There were many
> people killed, many were imprisoned, injured or suffered other way.
> There was a lot of pain, a lot of evilness.
The fact that oppressive governments do evil things is *not* the same as
them being removed by violent means. Not even remotely.
> If you claim this counter-example, I will very disagree.
> (here we still remember)
Maybe over here, we have a somewhat better memory, given that what
happened in East Germany was of slightly more interest to us than it was
In fact, from what I remember, even what happened in Poland was not quite
what one usually thinks of when talking about violent revolutions. IIRC, a
far more typical example would be what happened to Ceaucescu(sp?).
And undoubtably some people will claim that Ghandi did far more to free
India than all those trying to do it by force.