Re: `freeing' proprietary software (was Re: [DotGNU]Open Content Network: Free Software P2P)

[David Sugar]

Richard suffers often from this fate.  He is often very precise in what he
says but people are often much more imprecise in what they read or hear.  
Since this was a short quote taken out of context, and because often one
has to look at the full context to understand the precise meaning of what
was said, it is hard to say, but I happen to like your interpretation in
principle, that one should not put themselves in a situation where they
have to choose between copyright and cooperation in the first place.  Of
course, since Richard reads this list, I am sure he will comment if he
feels he has been misquoted or his remarks misinterpreted.

David

On Fri, 31 May 2002, Gopal V wrote:

> If memory serves me right, Adam Theo wrote:
> > S11001001 wrote:
> > > As a computer user today, you may find yourself using a proprietary 
> > > program. If your friend asks to make a copy, it would be wrong to 
> > > refuse. Cooperation is more important than copyright.
> > >     -- RMS, "Why Software Should Not Have Owners"
> > 
> > Free Software can take over the world, but it will not happen if it is 
> > associated with breaking the law. This is the biggest thing I have 
> > against RMS, in that he too often encourages this sort of thing. 
> 
> Actually you seem to have misinterpreted RMS ..... (or maybe I have) ..
> What he's saying is "don't buy proprietary and get into this dilemma"..
> 
> "Cooperation is more important" ... so don't create a situation where 
> you have to break the law to share... (Wasn't that what you were taught
> at the mother's knee -- to share ?)
> 
> > crimes to get what we want. 
> 
> Exactly ... risk refusing it to your friend or give him the FS you use :)
> No crime either way .. and guess which's better ?
> 
> > So sorry, disagree with RMS (and I'm assuming you as well) here  :-)
> 
> I'm sure my interpretation will have no problems with anyone :)
> 
> Gopal
>