🚀 go-pugleaf

charlie@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Charles Geyer) writes:
> In article <1991Nov6.191536.8674@midway.uchicago.edu>, goer@ellis.uchicago.ed
> (Richard L. Goerwitz) writes:
> > The question is whether it is really all that idiosyncratic
> > to think of freedom as implying a lack of restraint (either monetary, poli-
> > tical, legal, or otherwise).  Do you think that this notion is peculiarly
> > Goerwitzian?  If you do, then I'd have to conclude that you *have* in fact
> > been deceived by the very doublespeak that you say should never have confus
> > anyone.
[...]
> Again so what?
> 
> What's a "free man" someone who you can treat in an "unrestricted" fashion".

No, it's a man who is not constrained in some way.  A man who is unrestricted
in some way.

Your deliberate re-phrasing "in an ... fashion" to make the common definition
of "free" sound ridiculous isn't going to fool anyone.

> Similarly for "free software".  It's software that can't be enslaved.

But it is enslaved already, by a restrictive copyright.


mathew

-- 
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.