You point out (correctly) that digital is good enough that you can't reliably tell the difference, but digital, by *DEFINITION*, is "lower quality". It's part of the process of digitization.
Where did you get this idea that trade is mostly bad?
I did not get that idea. I said that trade with "underdeveloped" nations by superpowers (like the US) tends to be detrimental to the underdeveloped nation. I did not say it had to be this way, but that it's how it's working out currently, due to entities like the WTO.
That is the precise opposite of what economists say.
They say it's good for the economies of the nations, but it's absolutely retarded to not realize that economic welfare does not mean that it's good for the people.
The most prosperous nations today are the trading nations, and the correlation is no accident.
My example is that there are folks who want to levy confiscatory taxes on the rich to bring them down to everyone else's financial levels.
No one wants to do that. Have you ever heard anyone say, "tax Bill Gates until his net worth is equal to everyone else's financial level"?
Your political philosophy does not match reality. You *do* identify potential problems, but you do not accurately assess them.
No not every rich person or poor person is a certain way. But the majority of them are
I did not say they weren't a "certain way", I said they were not all rich (or poor) based simply on their intelligence, speed, physical prowess, etc. The world is far, *far*, more complex than your simplistic view.
The Iraqis were assholes, BEFORE the invasion.
So? Is being an asshole reason for invasion? Even assuming they are assholes (which they are not, asshole), now they are unemployed, bombed, occupied assholes with little left to lose.
They let Saddam stay in power for too long.
They did not "let" Saddam stay in power.
Had they removed him themselves we would never have had a reason to invade.
We did not invade because "the people of Iraq did not depose Saddam", or some such nonsense.
Programmers write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection of their property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out of their reach.
Absolutely wrong. No one writes free/open source software because, "if I tried to keep it proprietary, I'd be unable to protect my property rights".
If they were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
Your post appears to only comprehend money as a motive. You have, I imagine, determined that non-monetary motives are "impractical" (even though I'm also sure you invest your time in many non-monetary endeavors, like holiday celebrations, friends and family, posting on Slashdot, etc). Linus wanted a hackable Unix kernel, RMS wanted a totally free Operating System, JWZ wanted a screensaver, etc. None of them, I'm certain, cared much about not being paid for their work. Their motive wasn't money.
Democracy is a great thing but it has tricked some folks into believing we're all equal
Examples please. I've never heard anyone say, "we're all equal in capability". Duh.
There are those who are more talented, intelligent, faster, than others. Those who get their acts together quicker benefit and those who don't suffer.
Wrong. Or are you saying every rich person is "talented, intelligent, faster", etc? And that every poor person is "untalented, dumb, slow", etc?
When the people of Iraq want to stop acting like jackasses they too shall be able to build a great nation.
Wrong again. It's hard to be productive when your nation is invaded, blown to pieces, occupied, and the vast majority (read: all) reconstruction work is being done by foreign corporations.
It's particularly interesting that he's radically libertarian about things like software, but disapproves of companies from different counties doing business unimpeded by governments.
Ha! He's not libertarian. Libertarianism is about freedom from government, not freedom from corporate rule.
The best thing developed countries can do for under-developed countries is trade with them. Protectionism only prolongs the poverty.
The best thing you can do for a starving person is give them food...
Rancid food? Frozen food? Food in tin cans and no can opener?
The blanket statement is WRONG. Same as with your statement on trade. Trade *CAN* be good, but it isn't always, and the way things tend to work these days, it's usually *BAD*.
Your other statement is also wrong, regarding protectionism. An economy is like any complex system. Sometimes you have to limit/regulate certain portions for optimal performance.
No doubt there is DRM, if there wasn't TiVo would get sued by the MPAA & TV networks in a heartbeat.
Why? This is essentially iTunes for TV, right?
iTunes rips into AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, etc, non of which are ripped into DRM'd files. You can also copy iTunes tracks between computers manually, via Rendezvous (which is streaming) and on CD.
This is *exactly* like a non-DRM'd TiVo, mpeg2, encoding, transferring and storage system. Of course, since it's video, the MPAA and various networks might try a battle, but I can't believe it would succeed if iTunes is legal.
Whether or not it is possible to achieve a perfect, which is to say, undistorted, market, the fact is that the more perfect the market is, the more efficient is it. Whether or not an absolutely perfect market can be achieved is fairly irrelevent; in all cases, we must strive to make the market as efficient as it can be.
I don't mean this in the "you can't make a perfect circle" way, I mean it in the "you can't make a square circle" way.
The reason there is no such thing as a free market, is that every market consists of entities trying to modify the market.
But let's leave it as "free of government influence", which is impossible in the "perfect circle" way. The problem here is that the government is just an actor in a role. If you remove the government's ability to play that role, someone else will. For example, if the government cannot dictate a minimum wage, then Wal-Mart will. You can see this in action with the WTO supplanting government authority, pretending that they are creating a "free market".
The next iteration of "free market" is one where no one entity is allowed to have "undue" influence on the market. Only a government can enforce this.
But none of those "free markets" are actually free markets. To call them that causes one to hold as true something that is as impossible as a square circle (two-dimensional on a flat plane, before someone folds the circle to make it *look* square, or something). If you hold, not merely as "possible", but as "ideal" a square circle, you will make choices that not only defy reality, but actually harm society (if you have the power) or yourself at a minimum.
Curiously, ironically, what you say is true, but in practise, the inverse becomes true! the free market, the invisible hand, transforms our individual and corporate selfishness into a most effective greater good;
Prove it. You cannot, but I can disprove it.
The "invisible hand" directly opposes:
The minimum wage 40-hour work week Safety standards Honesty in labeling Seat-belts in cars Product recalls... pretty much anything socialistic that betters society.
but politics is saved by no such mechanism, and the decisions made there, although intended to be in the public good, must always in fact be made in a private good,
*All* decisions are, if rational, guided by selfish interests. Everything from charity (the selfish, but good, desire to fix hunger, for example), to releasing a product you *know* will kill people, but for a $0.75 part, to a bank robber, to a politician. The difference is what external forces guide their decisions. In the corporate world, PROFIT, and NOTHING else is the key and universal ideal. In politics (in a democratic nation--Democracy, btw, is another thing the invisible hand detests), the will of the people has more influence over politicians than it does over corporations.
that of the individual politician making the decision, and that private good is rarely aligned with the public good.
Which is why the powerful *must* be made accountable to the good of the people. I don't mean this in a slavery, "If you are capable, you must provide whatever the incompetent demand" way, but in a, "if you want to make use of the benefits provided by society, you must pay the price," which is usually a tax and a demand for honest dealings and not acting in a destructive manner towards others. That sort of, non-laissez-faire, non-invisible hand, thing.
That doesn't even make any sense. The ratings do not indicate the quality of the movies. Jar Jar was abominable, the reliance on CGI (which is not as natural, even, than stop-motion) was a mistake, and the story was not as complex (by the time you get to Ep. IV, there's already three episodes of back story. But at Ep. I, there really isn't much at all).
The movie wasn't targeted at kids (no more so than anyone else), but it was *about* a kid, and *that* was the biggest problem Lucas faced with Ep. I. It's *really* hard to make a movie about a kid that isn't childish. If he acted just like a little boy, it would have been boring, so they had to make him a pod-racing, star fighter-flying top gun war hero, which was *really* asking a lot of the audience. I would have made the film primarily about the Jedi, the Sith, and the Republic, with the rise of Anakin as a minor role, but Lucas wanted it to be primarily about Anakin. Oops.
Had Ep. II been released as Ep. I, things would have been a lot better.
The movies are what created the franchise in the first place, and Lucas can take the movies _AND_ the franchise in whatever direction he wants.
Clearly, but that doesn't mean a person can't CRITICIZE the moronic decisions that Lucas makes.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
That is an absurd suggestion, and one that *YOU* can't even follow (which would have been "if you don't like the poster's criticism, don't read it").
The *fact* is that Star Wars can belong to Lucas all he wants, he can do whatever he wants with it, but *the* *moment* he puts it out for the public to consume, he gives away part ownership. He still owns the legal and creative rights to it, certainly, but he no longer has a monopoly on the entirety of Star Wars. If he did, he could demand you and I not talk about it, and more so, could dictate how you even feel and think about the movies. Clearly he cannot, and *THAT* is what he does not, and can never, own, and *THAT* is *EXACTLY* what the poster you replied to was complaining about.
What of the money saved by being allowed to copy a few songs that would otherwise have cost you $50?
Corporate price-fixing has *far* worse consequences than this tax *ever* will.
Tax this, tax that, distort the market.
There is no such thing as an "undistorted" market.
When political decisions are badly made in the economic sphere, there is less choice of goods to buy, they cost more, and everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, becomes poorer.
Political descisions, at least, are (supposed to be) made in the interests of the people. The same can't be said for corporate decisions.
Since the vast majority of programming there goes on with open source software tooling, and everyone borrowing things from each other, one would think that the technical folks there would have a clue.
I bet they do. It's just that they aren't the ones who make the laws.
This doesn't really fit the pyramid scheme flaw. With a pyramid scheme, you *need* everyone in the world to buy in just to make some pittance, but with this scheme, you only need four friends to sign in (for zero dollar cost) to get 1 free iPod, and then you're done.
Most ISP's will give you a free month, or a $5-$20 credit, for signing up new friends, etc. The pattern here is similar. It can't hold up forever, but then, you don't really need it to.
There are certainly reasons not to play the game, but the ponzi/pyramid scheme argument isn't one of them.
Since you don't really *pay* any money to use the system, it's not much different from a rewards system (your employer probably has a $250 bonus, or something, for new hires you refer). If you know four people who'll do this with you, you *will* get a free iPod, and if they each know four people, exclusively, who'll join in, *they'll* get free iPods too. Yes, eventually there'll be a bunch of people without iPods, but since they are only out a few minutes of time and some (miniscule?) privacy loss, they probably won't really care (something along the lines of "damn, I thought I'd get a free iPod, oh well...").
That said, I don't expect ever to buy into this free iPod (or free whatever) scheme. It's a bit too shady. But for those who wish to play the game, the standard "pyramid scheme" argument isn't really a valid reason not to. It's not like you do this by paying $5 to six people (or whatever), in the hopes of getting money from each person below you on the list, turning $30 into $20mil.
Isnt it a GPL violation to ship the Linux kernel together with nvidia binary modules?
Not at all. The GPL only applies to GPL'd code, and any binaries resulting from compiling that code. The non-free NVIDIA binary is not under the GPL, and does not modify either the Linux kernel source code, nor does it modify the resulting binary, so they are entirely seperate (from a license stand-point) and can co-exist on the same CD (or DVD, or tarball, or web site, what have you).
The first being the one with Cliff Claven demonstrating Windows 95, right?
I can just imagine combining the two...
Norm: Heya Cliff, what'cha got there?
Cliff: Oh, hey Normy. This happens to be a Pentium IV notebook running Windows XP, the latest and greatest operating system from Microsoft.
Norm: Really? It must be pretty impressive. [exasperated look, realizing he just gave Cliff a reason to pontificate]
Cliff: I'm glad you asked that, Normy. Watch as I--
<ding!>
Cliff: Hmm. Maybe if I...
<ding!>
Cliff: What the? General Protection fault? I'll show you a General Protection fault!
<ding!><ding!><ding!>
Norm: Wait, wait, wait, Cliffy, let me see the notebook for a second.
[Cliff turns the notebook towards Norm. Norm closes the lid and places his beer mug on it, noticing how his beer lifting arm is more naturally level with the mug at that height]
What you are stating indicates that he *wants* all software to be free software, and that he won't do anything to *support* proprietary software. That's a far cry from him stating that "all software must be libre".
The way I see it, is he believes proprietary software to be morally bad, and that he wants people to choose the morally good mechanism of free software. But I've never heard him say that you should not have the right to choose non-free software, and I believe the reason you don't have a citation is that there isn't one.
Slashdot Mirror
To call digital "lower quality" is foolish.
You point out (correctly) that digital is good enough that you can't reliably tell the difference, but digital, by *DEFINITION*, is "lower quality". It's part of the process of digitization.
Where did you get this idea that trade is mostly bad?
I did not get that idea. I said that trade with "underdeveloped" nations by superpowers (like the US) tends to be detrimental to the underdeveloped nation. I did not say it had to be this way, but that it's how it's working out currently, due to entities like the WTO.
That is the precise opposite of what economists say.
They say it's good for the economies of the nations, but it's absolutely retarded to not realize that economic welfare does not mean that it's good for the people.
The most prosperous nations today are the trading nations, and the correlation is no accident.
Of course not, and I never implied otherwise.
My example is that there are folks who want to levy confiscatory taxes on the rich to bring them down to everyone else's financial levels.
No one wants to do that. Have you ever heard anyone say, "tax Bill Gates until his net worth is equal to everyone else's financial level"?
Your political philosophy does not match reality. You *do* identify potential problems, but you do not accurately assess them.
No not every rich person or poor person is a certain way. But the majority of them are
I did not say they weren't a "certain way", I said they were not all rich (or poor) based simply on their intelligence, speed, physical prowess, etc. The world is far, *far*, more complex than your simplistic view.
The Iraqis were assholes, BEFORE the invasion.
So? Is being an asshole reason for invasion? Even assuming they are assholes (which they are not, asshole), now they are unemployed, bombed, occupied assholes with little left to lose.
They let Saddam stay in power for too long.
They did not "let" Saddam stay in power.
Had they removed him themselves we would never have had a reason to invade.
We did not invade because "the people of Iraq did not depose Saddam", or some such nonsense.
it was political. Events around November of 2000 have set the political calendar back to the year 1900.
The disaster was not averted.
Programmers write free software to subvert a system that denies them the protection of their property rights by pricing legal defense of those rights out of their reach.
Absolutely wrong. No one writes free/open source software because, "if I tried to keep it proprietary, I'd be unable to protect my property rights".
If they were able to capture enough of the value of what they write to pay for the legal defense of their rights they'd probably write a lot less free software.
Your post appears to only comprehend money as a motive. You have, I imagine, determined that non-monetary motives are "impractical" (even though I'm also sure you invest your time in many non-monetary endeavors, like holiday celebrations, friends and family, posting on Slashdot, etc). Linus wanted a hackable Unix kernel, RMS wanted a totally free Operating System, JWZ wanted a screensaver, etc. None of them, I'm certain, cared much about not being paid for their work. Their motive wasn't money.
Democracy is a great thing but it has tricked some folks into believing we're all equal
Examples please. I've never heard anyone say, "we're all equal in capability". Duh.
There are those who are more talented, intelligent, faster, than others. Those who get their acts together quicker benefit and those who don't suffer.
Wrong. Or are you saying every rich person is "talented, intelligent, faster", etc? And that every poor person is "untalented, dumb, slow", etc?
When the people of Iraq want to stop acting like jackasses they too shall be able to build a great nation.
Wrong again. It's hard to be productive when your nation is invaded, blown to pieces, occupied, and the vast majority (read: all) reconstruction work is being done by foreign corporations.
It's particularly interesting that he's radically libertarian about things like software, but disapproves of companies from different counties doing business unimpeded by governments.
Ha! He's not libertarian. Libertarianism is about freedom from government, not freedom from corporate rule.
The best thing developed countries can do for under-developed countries is trade with them. Protectionism only prolongs the poverty.
The best thing you can do for a starving person is give them food...
Rancid food? Frozen food? Food in tin cans and no can opener?
The blanket statement is WRONG. Same as with your statement on trade. Trade *CAN* be good, but it isn't always, and the way things tend to work these days, it's usually *BAD*.
Your other statement is also wrong, regarding protectionism. An economy is like any complex system. Sometimes you have to limit/regulate certain portions for optimal performance.
No doubt there is DRM, if there wasn't TiVo would get sued by the MPAA & TV networks in a heartbeat.
Why? This is essentially iTunes for TV, right?
iTunes rips into AAC, MP3, WAV, AIFF, etc, non of which are ripped into DRM'd files. You can also copy iTunes tracks between computers manually, via Rendezvous (which is streaming) and on CD.
This is *exactly* like a non-DRM'd TiVo, mpeg2, encoding, transferring and storage system. Of course, since it's video, the MPAA and various networks might try a battle, but I can't believe it would succeed if iTunes is legal.
Whether or not it is possible to achieve a perfect, which is to say, undistorted, market, the fact is that the more perfect the market is, the more efficient is it. Whether or not an absolutely perfect market can be achieved is fairly irrelevent; in all cases, we must strive to make the market as efficient as it can be.
... pretty much anything socialistic that betters society.
I don't mean this in the "you can't make a perfect circle" way, I mean it in the "you can't make a square circle" way.
The reason there is no such thing as a free market, is that every market consists of entities trying to modify the market.
But let's leave it as "free of government influence", which is impossible in the "perfect circle" way. The problem here is that the government is just an actor in a role. If you remove the government's ability to play that role, someone else will. For example, if the government cannot dictate a minimum wage, then Wal-Mart will. You can see this in action with the WTO supplanting government authority, pretending that they are creating a "free market".
The next iteration of "free market" is one where no one entity is allowed to have "undue" influence on the market. Only a government can enforce this.
But none of those "free markets" are actually free markets. To call them that causes one to hold as true something that is as impossible as a square circle (two-dimensional on a flat plane, before someone folds the circle to make it *look* square, or something). If you hold, not merely as "possible", but as "ideal" a square circle, you will make choices that not only defy reality, but actually harm society (if you have the power) or yourself at a minimum.
Curiously, ironically, what you say is true, but in practise, the inverse becomes true! the free market, the invisible hand, transforms our individual and corporate selfishness into a most effective greater good;
Prove it. You cannot, but I can disprove it.
The "invisible hand" directly opposes:
The minimum wage
40-hour work week
Safety standards
Honesty in labeling
Seat-belts in cars
Product recalls
but politics is saved by no such mechanism, and the decisions made there, although intended to be in the public good, must always in fact be made in a private good,
*All* decisions are, if rational, guided by selfish interests. Everything from charity (the selfish, but good, desire to fix hunger, for example), to releasing a product you *know* will kill people, but for a $0.75 part, to a bank robber, to a politician. The difference is what external forces guide their decisions. In the corporate world, PROFIT, and NOTHING else is the key and universal ideal. In politics (in a democratic nation--Democracy, btw, is another thing the invisible hand detests), the will of the people has more influence over politicians than it does over corporations.
that of the individual politician making the decision, and that private good is rarely aligned with the public good.
Which is why the powerful *must* be made accountable to the good of the people. I don't mean this in a slavery, "If you are capable, you must provide whatever the incompetent demand" way, but in a, "if you want to make use of the benefits provided by society, you must pay the price," which is usually a tax and a demand for honest dealings and not acting in a destructive manner towards others. That sort of, non-laissez-faire, non-invisible hand, thing.
That doesn't even make any sense. The ratings do not indicate the quality of the movies. Jar Jar was abominable, the reliance on CGI (which is not as natural, even, than stop-motion) was a mistake, and the story was not as complex (by the time you get to Ep. IV, there's already three episodes of back story. But at Ep. I, there really isn't much at all).
The movie wasn't targeted at kids (no more so than anyone else), but it was *about* a kid, and *that* was the biggest problem Lucas faced with Ep. I. It's *really* hard to make a movie about a kid that isn't childish. If he acted just like a little boy, it would have been boring, so they had to make him a pod-racing, star fighter-flying top gun war hero, which was *really* asking a lot of the audience. I would have made the film primarily about the Jedi, the Sith, and the Republic, with the rise of Anakin as a minor role, but Lucas wanted it to be primarily about Anakin. Oops.
Had Ep. II been released as Ep. I, things would have been a lot better.
The movies are what created the franchise in the first place, and Lucas can take the movies _AND_ the franchise in whatever direction he wants.
Clearly, but that doesn't mean a person can't CRITICIZE the moronic decisions that Lucas makes.
If you don't like it, don't watch it.
That is an absurd suggestion, and one that *YOU* can't even follow (which would have been "if you don't like the poster's criticism, don't read it").
The *fact* is that Star Wars can belong to Lucas all he wants, he can do whatever he wants with it, but *the* *moment* he puts it out for the public to consume, he gives away part ownership. He still owns the legal and creative rights to it, certainly, but he no longer has a monopoly on the entirety of Star Wars. If he did, he could demand you and I not talk about it, and more so, could dictate how you even feel and think about the movies. Clearly he cannot, and *THAT* is what he does not, and can never, own, and *THAT* is *EXACTLY* what the poster you replied to was complaining about.
What of the money saved by being allowed to copy a few songs that would otherwise have cost you $50?
Corporate price-fixing has *far* worse consequences than this tax *ever* will.
Tax this, tax that, distort the market.
There is no such thing as an "undistorted" market.
When political decisions are badly made in the economic sphere, there is less choice of goods to buy, they cost more, and everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, becomes poorer.
Political descisions, at least, are (supposed to be) made in the interests of the people. The same can't be said for corporate decisions.
Isn't revelling in technological advances one way those who are debilitatingly incompetent at relating to people avoid having to face up to that?
Or condescension, apparently.
Since the vast majority of programming there goes on with open source software tooling, and everyone borrowing things from each other, one would think that the technical folks there would have a clue.
I bet they do. It's just that they aren't the ones who make the laws.
This doesn't really fit the pyramid scheme flaw. With a pyramid scheme, you *need* everyone in the world to buy in just to make some pittance, but with this scheme, you only need four friends to sign in (for zero dollar cost) to get 1 free iPod, and then you're done.
Most ISP's will give you a free month, or a $5-$20 credit, for signing up new friends, etc. The pattern here is similar. It can't hold up forever, but then, you don't really need it to.
There are certainly reasons not to play the game, but the ponzi/pyramid scheme argument isn't one of them.
Since you don't really *pay* any money to use the system, it's not much different from a rewards system (your employer probably has a $250 bonus, or something, for new hires you refer). If you know four people who'll do this with you, you *will* get a free iPod, and if they each know four people, exclusively, who'll join in, *they'll* get free iPods too. Yes, eventually there'll be a bunch of people without iPods, but since they are only out a few minutes of time and some (miniscule?) privacy loss, they probably won't really care (something along the lines of "damn, I thought I'd get a free iPod, oh well...").
That said, I don't expect ever to buy into this free iPod (or free whatever) scheme. It's a bit too shady. But for those who wish to play the game, the standard "pyramid scheme" argument isn't really a valid reason not to. It's not like you do this by paying $5 to six people (or whatever), in the hopes of getting money from each person below you on the list, turning $30 into $20mil.
Isnt it a GPL violation to ship the Linux kernel together with nvidia binary modules?
Not at all. The GPL only applies to GPL'd code, and any binaries resulting from compiling that code. The non-free NVIDIA binary is not under the GPL, and does not modify either the Linux kernel source code, nor does it modify the resulting binary, so they are entirely seperate (from a license stand-point) and can co-exist on the same CD (or DVD, or tarball, or web site, what have you).
Where on earth are you going to find the vintage IC's for this thing? (Didn't RTFA).
Well, RTFA you lazy sod! Had you done so, you'd have had your answer quicker than it took you to post the question.
Now he has his own server slashdotted ... he sure is the space geek who has EVERYTHING now!
Yeah, but running his server on his Apollo clone is cheating.
Time is far, far more precious than money. We only trade *some* of our time for money so we can use that money during the remaining time.
Beyond that, this guy is lucky its christmas because with multiple 4-9 meg pdf files it would be a silent night for his server.
from the your-server-is-now-a-yule-log dept...
[me] HI AUNT EDNA! Look what I built for you! Its an exact replica of the Apollo guidance computer!
[Aunt Edna] uh, thanks?
Or:
[Aunt Edna] I'm not *that* old, you little shit.
with those old boxes, how in hell did they ever make it to the moon and back alive.
It takes more computational power to provide a retarded paperclip assistant than it does to go to the Moon.
This is the second movie about Windows right?
The first being the one with Cliff Claven demonstrating Windows 95, right?
I can just imagine combining the two...
Norm: Heya Cliff, what'cha got there?
Cliff: Oh, hey Normy. This happens to be a Pentium IV notebook running Windows XP, the latest and greatest operating system from Microsoft.
Norm: Really? It must be pretty impressive. [exasperated look, realizing he just gave Cliff a reason to pontificate]
Cliff: I'm glad you asked that, Normy. Watch as I--
<ding!>
Cliff: Hmm. Maybe if I...
<ding!>
Cliff: What the? General Protection fault? I'll show you a General Protection fault!
<ding!><ding!><ding!>
Norm: Wait, wait, wait, Cliffy, let me see the notebook for a second.
[Cliff turns the notebook towards Norm. Norm closes the lid and places his beer mug on it, noticing how his beer lifting arm is more naturally level with the mug at that height]
Norm: Yup, just right. Hey Woody, another round.
What you are stating indicates that he *wants* all software to be free software, and that he won't do anything to *support* proprietary software. That's a far cry from him stating that "all software must be libre".
The way I see it, is he believes proprietary software to be morally bad, and that he wants people to choose the morally good mechanism of free software. But I've never heard him say that you should not have the right to choose non-free software, and I believe the reason you don't have a citation is that there isn't one.