>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.
That's often true. (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may
take some of your time.) But I don't think that changes the issue.
Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction.
The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible
for computer users in general. We can and do copy software, unless
someone goes out of his way to stop us.
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?
When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we
are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight
about it. When something is feasible to copy, then the question of
whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.
