| 1 |
I agree fully that I would probably be willing to die for the principle |
| 2 |
or main idea of freedom of choice, aka not microsoft-monopoly. We see |
| 3 |
this in the Student's revolt in China, the freedom fighters in South |
| 4 |
Africa (the black panthers, or was that America?), and then the same |
| 5 |
thing in America: People like myself without families were willing to |
| 6 |
die for ideas that they believed strongly enough in, however people (I |
| 7 |
assume Duncan has a family) who had families were not willing to die for |
| 8 |
such ideas. Open-source software is not a cause worthy of death, but it |
| 9 |
is a representation of the cause: freedom of choice. |
| 10 |
|
| 11 |
-Peter |
| 12 |
On Fri, 2006-09-29 at 16:20 -0700, Richard Fish wrote: |
| 13 |
> On 9/29/06, Bob Young <BYoung@××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 14 |
> > Would you go to war, or be willing to die for the "freedom" that open source |
| 15 |
> > provides? If not, then equating it with the freedoms that real mean and |
| 16 |
> > women have fought and died for is to marginalize the importance the word is |
| 17 |
> > meant to convey. |
| 18 |
> |
| 19 |
> No, but that is *my* opinion. However Duncan has stated previously |
| 20 |
> that, while he probably wouldn't be willing to die to defend his |
| 21 |
> freedom regarding open source software, that he _should_ be willing to |
| 22 |
> do so. So by your standard, *his* use of those terms is really not |
| 23 |
> all that far fetched. |
| 24 |
> |
| 25 |
> I do agree that the terms are very strong..much stronger than my |
| 26 |
> feelings on the subject, which is why I do not use them. But you |
| 27 |
> really should read what Duncan has said previously on this [1]. His |
| 28 |
> feelings are very strong on the subject...strong enough to justify his |
| 29 |
> use of these terms IMO. |
| 30 |
> |
| 31 |
> -Richard |
| 32 |
> |
| 33 |
> [1] http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.gentoo.amd64/8196 |
| 34 |
|
| 35 |
-- |
| 36 |
gentoo-amd64@g.o mailing list |
Archives