On Sun, 6 Jan 2008, Richard Stallman wrote:
> 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.
Isn't this attitude more than a bit short-sighted? I certainly
understand the benefits of reserving one's resources for dealing with
issues that "can happen", but many of the technology-related problems we
have today are arguably due (at least in large part) to people ignoring
them as "not possible" until they had already become established
practice (and so, almost impossible to undo).
Dave
--
Dave Anderson
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
