[LINK] extreem patheticism
cas at taz.net.au
Fri Jun 10 11:08:50 EST 2005
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 08:27:39AM +1000, Deus Ex Machina wrote:
> with gpl you cant prevent someone from accessing the source
> and you cant prevent someone from modifying it and redistributing it.
wow! you're so smart, and so perceptive. you noticed something that
nobody had ever seen before, that the entire point of the GPL is so that
you can't prevent anyone else from modifying and/or redistributing GPL
who would have thought it? inconceivable.
> in other words you can not own any gpl software, FSF owns all the gpl
> software in the world.
you are an ignoramus. a crime which would be forgivable if you didn't
make a habit of loudly pushing your ignorance as fact.
the FSF does *NOT* own all GPL-ed software. it doesn't even own most of it.
they own a small fraction of all available GPL software - they only own the
software that they wrote or which the author(s) assigned copyright to them.
there are tens of thousands of GPL-ed programs currently in existence. the
FSF owns only hundreds of programs at most.
other people, the author(s), own the GPL-ed software that they wrote and
retain the copyright on.
> gpl is a dotcommunist abuse of the copyright systems its viral aspects
> should be legislated out of existence and messers mogden and stallman
> and friends should be exiled to north korea where life is beautiful
> all the time...
it's amazing how self-proclaimed free-market libertarians are so keen to
intervene in the market for the sake of ideology.
why, exactly, is it OK for for-profit business to compete but wrong for
a non-profit to compete? is profit a moral quality now? does the pursuit
of profit make competition noble?
or are you just scared to compete with collective action because you
know that selfish individualism is vastly less efficient than any form
of collectivism, and that profit is an *inherent* inefficiency?
a *real* free-market attitude would be "if for-profit can't compete with
non-profit then it *deserves* to wither and die. it certainly does not
deserve to be propped up with Statist legislation/intervention".
but your attitude isn't really that surprising - like all libertarians,
your alleged devotion to the free market ideal is just window-dressing
to cover up your viciously selfish greed.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au> (part time cyborg)
More information about the Link