1 |
"Bob Young" <BYoung@××××××××××.com> posted |
2 |
FAEEIJPAOFEMBBLKPMJEIEMEHKAA.BYoung@××××××××××.com, excerpted below, on |
3 |
Fri, 29 Sep 2006 17:09:23 -0700: |
4 |
|
5 |
[richard j. fish wrote] |
6 |
>> No, but that is *my* opinion. However Duncan has stated previously |
7 |
>> that, while he probably wouldn't be willing to die to defend his freedom |
8 |
>> regarding open source software, that he _should_ be willing to do so. |
9 |
> |
10 |
> That is a very crucial difference, and deserves not to be glossed over. |
11 |
> *Should* and *is* are two very different things. Men and women *have* |
12 |
> actually died to protect our freedom, to equate something that isn't |
13 |
> actually worth that ultimate price with the word, frankly, cheapens the |
14 |
> word. |
15 |
|
16 |
Indeed, but the fault there would be with my personal resolve. There are |
17 |
many folks who aren't willing to give their lives for a freedom yet |
18 |
realize and are grateful that others are so willing, and would still |
19 |
consider them freedoms, even if they aren't willing to personally give |
20 |
their lives for them. Many/most of these would also agree that they |
21 |
/should/ be willing to give their life for those freedoms, whether they |
22 |
/actually/ are or not. Thus, whether people are actually willing to do it |
23 |
vs whether they think they /should/ be willing to do it has little bearing |
24 |
on whether it can rightly be called a freedom or not. Certainly, I'd |
25 |
argue that if someone's willing to give up physical freedoms, regardless |
26 |
of whether they are willing to give their life, trading freedom for |
27 |
freedom, as it were, that's far more than is the case with much of what we |
28 |
already call freedom on a more ordinary scale. |
29 |
|
30 |
-- |
31 |
Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. |
32 |
"Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- |
33 |
and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman |
34 |
|
35 |
-- |
36 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |