Re: [Somewhat More OT] Closed source software Was [Re: Hmmm. A question. Was [Re: Debian is losing its users]]
On Saturday 05 April 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> Hal Vaughan wrote:
> | On Friday 04 April 2008, Chris Walters wrote:
> | ...
> |
> |> If RMS is basing his ideals on the GNU charter, I don't think he
> |> read it clearly enough. "Free: As in freedom". This should apply
> |> whether a person wants to use pure open source software, closed
> |> source software, or a mix of both. This is freedom.
> |
> | That is how you and most others would define freedom. It's not how
> | he defines it. How you define that word makes a big difference.
> |
> | Hal
>
> That is true - how is word is defined does make a big difference.
> For example, if I define the word "freedom" to mean slavery, and the
> concept of "human rights" to mean "the right be be only a slave, or a
> slave owner", then I am attacking the language by altering
> fundamental definitions of word, and concepts.
Yes, it is an attack on the language, since the other discussion (in
terms of software) is a matter of degree and freedom is slavery is
dealing with exact opposites. (Where have I heard that phrase about
freedom and slavery before?...)
> I know that he doesn't define freedom as I and most others do, but I
> hope that he and those others are in the minority fringe.
I would think so, but I also think this is a minority fringe that has
created benefits for the rest of us.
Hal
Reply to: