On Sunday 22 July 2001 15:31, Manish Jethani wrote:
Sometime today, Philip S Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Jul 21, Manish Jethani assembled some asciibets to
say:
On a serious note, I disagree with the idea of using a pirated copy of Windows. You are denying Microsoft the right to make money, that
According to RMS, it's okay to make money only if you do not hurt people doing it. Microsoft hurts people with their
RMS is Not God.
No, he is only a saint.
If you agree with RMS in not wanting to pay Microsoft, simply don't use their products! Microsoft is not forcing you to use their products. You can boycott Microsoft if you want, but they have a right to make money _their_ way as long as they're not forcing anyone to buy their products.
Using pirated Windows is the wrong way of doing it. Just because you don't agree with Microsoft's licence doesn't mean you are going to _violate_ it. If that's fair, then even I can violate the GNU GPL on the grounds of not agreeing with it. How would RMS like that?
He would probaly laugh. In order to violate the gpl I presume you would not publish the code of your derived works. This will benefit you in the very short term only. By the time you are able to leverage your product to a revenue earner it will be overun by a gpld product. The real strength of freesoftware is the inputs from all other participants at no cost. Other violations of gpl are almost passive and IMHO irrelevant. ;-) Piracy is if one sells or profits from an act. One can simply give it away to enemies.
It is far easier for Microsoft to violate the GNU GPL than it is for the FSF and friends to violate Microsoft EULAs.
No need. They can always suck on the BSD. M$ would also be fairly irrelevant in a couple of years if the copyright and patenting system is corrected to include the issues touched upon by FSF. They are important right now because they are in a position to leverage their existing monopoly on the desktop to restrict development by other hackers.