<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7650.28">
<TITLE>RE: GNU discussion</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>>> If others take code under the BSDL and put it into a closed system, freedom<BR>
>> doesn't go away at all. It just doesn't necessarily extend any further.<BR>
><BR>
>It has gone away for the users of that system.<BR>
<BR>
...who are, of course, being forced to use said system at gunpoint.<BR>
<BR>
Really, what's it to you? If people want to use a closed system, for whatever reasons, why do you feel you need to stand in their way, or "re-educate" them?<BR>
<BR>
I asked you some time ago--and never got a response--whether you wanted to take the stance that I was "unethical" for using Photoshop and Illustrator (or, maybe, whether Adobe was "unethical" for selling them to me). Come up with any sort of answer yet? It seems to be pretty much the same issue.<BR>
<BR>
Why is your particular (and more restricted) version of "freedom" the only acceptable one? (See if you can come up with a more coherent "example" than the "freedom" to beat people up, okay?)<BR>
<BR>
"What's he to Hecubah, or Hecubah to him, that he should weep thus for her?"--Wm. Shakespeare, Hamlet<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>