2008/1/6, Richard Stallman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > >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. >
The key-phrase I noticed in your message are "computer users in general". That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and governments uses computers as well, so they are too "computer users", thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every "computer users in general". So I take it you are referring to home/small business computer users? Oh, don't forget that there are people who will produce the hardware for your given documentation at a practical cost even for the average home user, as stated earlier. -- 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
