Linux laptops, revisited (can any sleep like my PowerBook does?)
lists at kittypee.com
Mon Jan 21 15:36:37 MST 2008
Levi Pearson wrote:
> Any assertion that those rights *are* universal must be religious,
> since they clearly aren't fundamental to human nature and only God
> could choose to grant them universally. :P
Any assertion that those rights are *not* universal must also equally be
religious. I did not say these rights are universal. I agree that they
are "negotiable rights", but your statement connecting any rights
definition on "human nature" and/or "God" is also religious. Don't
claim it not be.
> That would be mis-education based on a faulty understanding (or
> correct understanding and deliberate misuse) of heavily-loaded terms
> like 'freedom' and 'right'. Copying or modifying someone's software
> against their will is just as unkind, and telling them that they can't
> exercise their copyright is just as freedom-restricting. Telling
> people that everyone ought to have these four freedoms doesn't make it
> so. Calling people who release their software under different terms
> 'unkind' is just being childish and anti-social.
Developing non-free software is anti-social. It prevents me from
sharing with my fellow society members. It prevents me from helping
friends by adding needed features to their software for them. It
prevents me from innovating on top of other's innovation.
The biggest point of the Free Software movement is to educate people of
the benefits of Free Software, and the amazing opportunities these
freedoms grant. This education is aimed at getting more people to
demand and seize these important opportunities to enrich our societies
and help our fellow man. By refusing to use non-free software we can
demonstrate that people understand the importance of these freedoms and
realize their value.
I know I am never going to convince you, Levi, about the important
benefits of these freedoms, since you admit that you will flush them
away at will.
I am done.
More information about the PLUG