On Wed, Jan 07, 2004 at 09:21:14AM +1100, Craig Sanders wrote: > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 12:58:07PM -0600, John Goerzen wrote: > > On Tue, Jan 06, 2004 at 06:06:35PM +1100, Anand Kumria wrote: > > > Well I, for one, look forward to your pointing out those delusions one > > > by one. Otherwise I'm compelled to believe that Craig is largely correct. > > > > His very first paragraph ascribes a belief to every last one of the non-free > > removal supports which I believe few, if any, have ever actually held. I > > have already pointed out that. How do you expect the message to be taken > > seriously after that? > > because it accurately describes the behaviour of the zealots, rather than what > they falsely claim.
No, you state that "They like to pretend that it's all proprietary software, that it doesn't even come close to free, that source-code isn't available." That is demonstrably false. The fact that I disagree with you about the gravity of the non-freeness of various non-free licenses does not mean that I am oblivious to the fact that various licenses exist, or the differences between them. > none of you make any distinction between proprietary software and > almost-free software. your motiviation is obsessive ideology, not > grounded in reality. Which seems to this observer to be the same as yours. -- John
