[LUAU] the term "open source" is dead, says Eben Moglen

[Jimen Ching]

On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Jim Thompson wrote:
> In order for society to function, we must all express a basic level of caring 
> for, and empathizing with, our fellow human beings (as well as
> other life forms on this planet, and, indeed, the planet itself.)

Gee, who's imposing their believe on whom now?

> Software should be Free (as in Freedom) is a radical idea, as it works against 
> the accepted norm of being able to charge (again and again and again) for the 
> product of one's labors.

Ugh, you need to study your computer history a little more.  As far as I 
know, free software predated proprietary software.  When computers were 
first created, software was shared freely by the first geeks that used 
those devices.  The idea of charging for software came way after there was 
an established community of free software developers.  Why do you think 
RMS believes that sharing software was natural?  People at MIT has always 
shared software.  The idea of proprietary software was the radical idea. 
At least back then.

> It may well be, however, that it is better for *society* (as a whole)
> for software to be shared.   In our society, the author of the software
> gets to make a choice.
>
> should we not honor that choice?

Didn't you already answered this question from the previous post?  You 
know, "your rights shouldn't trample on mines..."

> course, if they go out of business, you may wish you could maintain the 
> software they sold you...

Or more likely; you wish you could pay someone else to maintain that 
software which your livelyhood now depends.  Oh great, now I'm getting 
dramatic.  ;)

--jc
-- 
Jimen Ching (WH6BRR)      jching at flex.com     wh6brr at uhm.ampr.org