Xref: utzoo alt.religion.computers:1268 gnu.misc.discuss:700 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!newstop!texsun!texbell!sugar!peter From: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: alt.religion.computers,gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: The meaning of life, as it relates to hacking. Message-ID: <4859@sugar.hackercorp.com> Date: 30 Dec 89 19:13:38 GMT References: <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> <4ZW1ijS00WBKE1qh5C@andrew.cmu.edu> Organization: Sugar Land Unix - Houston Lines: 26 > Anytime you distribute software with _any_ restrictions on use or > distribution, you're "using the force of the state to impose your > morals". Almost all the stuff I've seen from you for the Amiga > qualifies as such. Sure I'm using the force of the state. I accept that hired violence is violence none the less. BUT where do my morals come into it? All my copyright notices explicitly state that you can use my stuff for anything you want, so long as you give me credit for it. The two exceptions are Browser, which is shareware, and Tracers, which is commercial. None of this has anything to do with my morality or my attitudes towards the free market. The MOST restrictive copyright I've come up with doesn't restrict anyone from using my stuff however I wish. Come on. Cite examples. Show me where I'm trying to impose my morals on anyone. > I repeat - why is rms doing this any more despicable than your doing > this? I repeat - where am I doing this? -- Peter "Have you hugged your wolf today" da Silva `-_-' 'U` "I haven't lost my mind, it's backed up on tape somewhere"