Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!granite.pa.dec.com!mwm From: mwm@raven.pa.dec.com (Mike (Under Construction) Meyer) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers Subject: Re: Morality versus enlightened self interest Message-ID: Date: 12 Jan 90 19:09:07 GMT References: <4880@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4918@sugar.hackercorp.com> Sender: news@decwrl.dec.com Organization: Missionaria Phonibalonica Lines: 34 In-reply-to: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com's message of 12 Jan 90 14:23:35 GMT In article <4918@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) writes: Path: decwrl!wuarchive!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers Summary: y Date: 12 Jan 90 14:23:35 GMT References: <4880@sugar.hackercorp.com> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 20 > 1) Any restrictions on redistribution (even as minor as insisting that > someone leave your name in the sources) are an imposition of the > morals (or ethics, or merely "will" if you want to play word games) of > the person imposing the restrictions. OK, you've said this over and over. Now how about supporting this statement with something other than your naked assertion, because I, for one, don't accept it. Restricting the *use* of the program is a moral issue. Insisting that someone leave your name in the sources isn't. And now you're playing word games. Either that, or you don't think it's immoral to claim credit for a program you didn't write. If the latter, then you should have no beef against rms. If the former - well, I'm not interested in playing word games.