2008/1/5, Paul Greidanus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Richard Stallman wrote: > > If something is harder to copy, it is ethically ok to have a different > > standard for this piece of technology. > > > > Seriously, that's what you're saying above. Because hardware may have > > to be copied by hand, you consider them ethically not the same. > > > > Yes, that's my position, for 20 years or more. I think that's the > > right place to make the distinction: between "you can copy it > > yourself" and "somebody can build more of them". > > > I'm reading this right, the decision as to if something is right and wrong, > ethical and non-ethical, is a function of how easy it is? >
>From the looks of it, it is how cheap and easy something can be done. Remember that copying software is not free, even if you don't pay for the software itself. You still need some medium such a CD or hard disk which you have to pay for, and the electricity for doing the actual copying of the bits of data, it is just really cheap to do so. >From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than just plain free. In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy... which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive? -- Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
