[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: More FSF hypocrisy

From: Thufir Hawat
Subject: Re: More FSF hypocrisy
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 2009 22:16:37 GMT
User-agent: Pan/0.132 (Waxed in Black)

On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 21:35:59 +0100, Alexander Terekhov wrote:

> Thufir Hawat wrote:
>> On Tue, 24 Mar 2009 15:37:37 -0400, Rjack wrote:
>> > Rjack doesn't accept the rationalization of piracy due the thief's
>> > state of mind or motive. The difference between commercial and
>> > non-commercial piracy is comparable to the difference between being
>> > pregnant and a "little bit" pregnant.
>> Who does accept the rationalization of piracy?  Be specific with an
>> example.
> <quote>
> HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software.

HY: Hmmm. Then tell me what you think about pirated software.

RMS: I don't call this copying "piracy", because that is a propaganda 
word. I don't think it is wrong to copy and share information. 
Governments can pass laws against it, but that does not make it wrong, 
just illegal. 

I think it's illegal.  However, these warez types, apparently, don't 
impact, to pick a company a random, Microsoft's bottom line, because they 
wouldn't buy the software anyhow.  So, hitting some warez punk with huge 
fines is silly.  There are also cases where Windows Genuine Advantage 
fails to correctly assess what is or isn't pirated software.  On that 
note, there's a quote of Bill Gates floating around where he effectively 
advocates piracy of windows because, in the long run, it will help 

Piracy is more prevalent among Windows users than Linux users; often 
Windows users aren't even aware they're pirating.

The point was that the FSF wasn't, and shouldn't, defend a company which 
willfully violates the law.  The FSF might defend *individuals*, and make 
various arguments, depending on the circumstances -- which have been 
ignored so far.


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]