Tom wrote: > The second part is understandable but ultimately not defensible: there > really is no correlation between the cost of software and its value, so > you always end up in these stupid situation where you've spent $100,000 > for software and you're pulling 36-hour shifts to keep it running. But > the correct way to fix that problem is to improve software quality and > incrementally lower prices -- the way the market fixes things. Stallman > unfortunately ate too much acid (as some of us have too :-) and got his > hatred of his parents (the root cause of all political protests) > chocolate mixed up in his peanut butter. He probably was pissed off > because his Research Grant got denied or some other academia niggling > issue -- colllege people are notorious about bitching over funding. > > It's the second part that is silly and will not stand up in court. The > first part is okay. The acid seems to be in your past; the GPL places no limits on the cost of software. -- see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature