Paul Serice <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > But this is not what GPL is about . . . apparently. Apparently, even if > the original author wants his or her work used in a certain non-GPL-ed > way, it doesn't matter. The moral thing to do is to disregard the > wishes of the author and to copy it anyway -- even in violation of laws > of a democratic nation.
Sometimes the laws of a democratic nation are corrupt and may be disobeyed. It's called civil disobedience. I suggest you read up on the subject. Not all laws are just. You and I might disagree with RMS about whether this is a corrupt law, but that's not the point. > In Orwell's _1984_, there is a discussion about how things get named > with the exact opposite of what they mean. For example, the "People's > Newspaer" or the "Freedom Ministry." I have to think that I should > start thinking "free" as in 1984, not as in beer and certainly not as in > freedom to choose how your work is used. Sigh. Indeed. There are people out there who think that "freedom" consists in things like getting to demand what other poeple do on their computers. They actually think that they should be "free" to restrict the liberty of other people. I know, it's quite a shame, but they do twist words that way. You and I, of course, recognize that we must resist this, right? When someone under the pretense of "author's rights" tries to take away our liberty to copy, we should resist them. Thomas
