mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Under Construction) Meyer) (01/13/90)
In article <4918@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: Path: decwrl!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers Summary: y Date: 12 Jan 90 14:23:35 GMT References: <MWM.90Jan4183522@raven.pa.dec.com> <4880@sugar.hackercorp.com> <MWM.90Jan11203007@raven.pa.dec.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 20 > 1) Any restrictions on redistribution (even as minor as insisting that > someone leave your name in the sources) are an imposition of the > morals (or ethics, or merely "will" if you want to play word games) of > the person imposing the restrictions. OK, you've said this over and over. Now how about supporting this statement with something other than your naked assertion, because I, for one, don't accept it. Restricting the *use* of the program is a moral issue. Insisting that someone leave your name in the sources isn't. And now you're playing word games. Either that, or you don't think it's immoral to claim credit for a program you didn't write. If the latter, then you should have no beef against rms. If the former - well, I'm not interested in playing word games. <mike -- The road is full of dangerous curves Mike Meyer And we don't want to go too fast mwm@berkeley.edu We may not make it first ucbvax!mwm But I know we're going to make it last. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) (01/20/90)
> I'm not interested in playing word games.
You say it's a word game. I say it's a quantitativce difference sufficiently
large to be a qualitative one. If you can't make that sort of distinction,
you should probably be picketing family planning centers.
--
Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva <peter@sugar.hackercorp.com>
`-_-'
'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"