Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #73018Re: mailbox full (was Copyleft & royalties for authors)
From: Richard L. Goerwitz
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1991 01:41
Date: Thu, 07 Nov 1991 01:41
41 lines
2803 bytes
2803 bytes
>> In fact, copylefted software is heavily restricted, to the point of trying >> to enforce upon me a specific way of handling software, and forcing me to get >> others to do the same. > >Again so what? > >What's a "free man" someone who you can treat in an "unrestricted" fashion". >Similarly for "free software". It's software that can't be enslaved. This is ludicrous. Do we now disregard context as a viable guide to meaning? All the schoolboys online here have gotten out their dictionaries and started quoting them to me completely out of context. Today walk up to someone and say, "There is this foundation that writes free software." Ask him or her what is implied by that. Ask what the plain meaning is. Invariably they'll say that it doesn't cost a cent. Anything beyond that lies in the realm of non-obvious meanings, and constitutes mis- direction. In the context of discussions of slavery, "free" has another meaning. Ask anyone on the street what a freed slave is, and he or she will give approx- imately the same answer. If you define a freed slave to be something other than this, you jump into the realm of non-obvious meanings. Why must I point out the obvious? If it's not costless, then what is it? Is it free in the sense of being freely usable or accessible? Certainly not. You have to buy into the socioeconomic philosophy of the FSF, and tack on the little license that insists every one else will, too. There is no latitude for people who might dare to differ in opinion, or who might just like the idea of truly unrestricted software. You eat it up, or you leave it be. Some freedom! This is not freedom. It's doublespeak. Quote me all the secondary defini- tions in the world, and it's not going to alter the plain sense of the word in the context we're talking about. That is, if we're using language to communicate ideas, and not living in a Lewis Carroll fantasy. -- -Richard L. Goerwitz goer%sophist@uchicago.bitnet goer@sophist.uchicago.edu rutgers!oddjob!gide!sophist!goer
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1991Nov7.014105.23079@midway.uchicago.edu>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!midway!ellis!goerReferences:
<1991Nov6.175407.2243@cs.umn.edu> <1991Nov6.191536.8674@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Nov6.215006.5060@cs.umn.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,246c9c7ef4135c55 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1991-11-07 05:10:58 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!gmdzi!zeus.ieee.org!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uwm.edu!linac!midway!ellis!goer From: goer@ellis.uchicago.edu (Richard L. Goerwitz) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: mailbox full (was Copyleft & royalties for authors) Message-ID: <1991Nov7.014105.23079@midway.uchicago.edu> Date: 7 Nov 91 01:41:05 GMT References: <1991Nov6.175407.2243@cs.umn.edu> <1991Nov6.191536.8674@midway.uchicago.edu> <1991Nov6.215006.5060@cs.umn.edu> Sender: news@midway.uchicago.edu (NewsMistress) Organization: University of Chicago Lines: 41