The BSD License is a permissive one if Theo wants it to be viral he should have made it viral.
No; it's permissive in terms of use. If you want to relicense it, go and get permission from the copyright holder. If you don't do that, you're breaking copyright law. Anything BSD licensed is copyrighted to someone. You're making the assumption that copyright needs a license on top of it in order to be legally enforceable, but truthfully it's no more or less enforceable than the GPL itself.
If you're supporting GPL and hence software freedom, you must respect other's freedom too. There is nothing like my way of freedom is bigger than your freedom.
The thing is, Stallman's cultists do think like that...he tells them to. The FSF's message has continually been, for years, that their way is the only acceptable way, morally, legally, and in whatever other possible sense. Co-existence with anyone who does not share his perspective is something that Richard Stallman does not tolerate the concept of.
Microsoft could take this driver tomorrow and put it in Vista without ever making the code available or acknowledging that they got it from BSD
Stop pulling the Microsoft card as justification. It's getting very, very old. Microsoft and the fear of Microsoft (and other such corporations) are just about the only thing that anyone who advocates the GPL can use to justify its' existence.
The other thing that you're not looking at is, said corporations using BSD licensed code hasn't destroyed the BSDs; if anything, in the case of OSX, it's been good for them. It's hollow, emotive fearmongering...and it really began in earnest because a couple of years ago, the FSF were creeping dangerously close to becoming entirely irrelevant. DRM and everything else that the FSF has tried to prohibit with GPL 3 is the FSF's own answer to the War on Terror. They use the fearmongering purely to justify the GPL's existence and to keep themselves as an organisation in people's minds.
The first line of a BSD license that is applied to anything reads, "Copyright ,."
In other words, it is a license which is first copyrighted by the author according to conventional copyright law, and then declares rights of use/distribution to individuals after that.
If GPL zealots rush to relicense code under said license because they hold the cynical belief that conventional copyright law on its' own is toothless, they are in effect committing acts of copyright violation. Of course, in the sick, twisted mind of a worshipper of Richard Stallman, the ends generally justify the means, so that would be seen as acceptable because they're putting said code under the GPL.
As distasteful as he might find it, Theo should possibly consider having a few legal public executions utilising the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. He'd probably only need to make a couple of examples, and I suspect the relicensing frenzy would cease.
I want to point out that in the long run it would probably be much greater than Torvalds.
You obviously want to think that, and yes, I know a lot of other people do...including Stallman himself. I think that's actually one of the main reasons why I find myself admiring Linus more...he doesn't have the sort of desperate need to be seen as great that Stallman does.
The amount of bitterness that Stallman has expressed about Torvalds really receiving any recognition at all, to me betrays a very deep sense of personal insecurity, and a degree of overall egotism which to be honest, I've always found distasteful. It also isn't something I associate with greatness, personally.
If Stallman really was a great man, then in my own mind he would simply do what he does regardless, and allow history and the public to draw their own conclusions, without caring too much about what said conclusions are. The fact that he does care so much about that, to me, draws his fundamental motivations into question.
The thing that's interesting is that according to most of psychological literature that I've read, a person usually has to be living in an isolated, controlled environment (such as a compound or ashram) in order for mind control of this degree of severity to be able to take hold (and to be maintained) in an individual.
That the FSF have been able to remotely brainwash individuals to this extent, and especially while such individuals are still presumably living within mainstream society, is truly impressive. I find myself wondering if anyone from Scientology or other similar groups have been in contact with the FSF to find out how they managed it.
"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
Notice also how the question deals with objective elements, and Stallman uses the answer to steer things back to dealing with that glorious emotive subjective abstraction, freedom. After reading this, you might want to compare with the actual legally binding text of the GPL 3.
As another comparitive exercise, try listening to the speech George W Bush gave at his second inauguration ceremony, and note the number of times that the words "freedom," and "liberty," were used. Then try reading the text of the Patriot Act.
The consistent element with both of these men is the degree of difference between what they say, and what is expressed/enacted by the text of the laws they advocate and empower.
Neither of them give a damn about the ability of any individual to be self-determining, or the ability of any individual to take any action that deviates in any way from their directives. The only reason why the word freedom gets used at all is because they are hoping to create a highly positive, non-rational emotional state in their listeners, and then associate themselves with that state. They actually know, deep down, that the only way they can control anyone is if the controlled individual willingly consents.
Something about RMS's stance rubs me the same way that Bush administration politics does:
That would be because they're both authoritarians in a fairly similar vein; you're obviously recognising such.
I certainly appreciate some of the stuff that RMS is trying to accomplish, but I wish he'd go about it in a different way. Or is that not possible?
The problem is that Stallman doesn't in reality give a damn about freedom any more than Bush does; the difference is that because he's associated to some degree with the generation of a lot of code, people look at that as evidence that he means what he says.
If you want to learn what he is really about, rather than listening to his own self-promotional rhetoric, all you really need to do is go and read his license itself. Then read the text of the BSD license, and ask yourself whether the BSDs have needed the type of legal apparatus that the FSF claims it needs to in order to be able to continue to exist.
about Stallman is that he once again proves it is a fine line between genius and insanity.
He might have been a genius as a programmer, but even that is open to debate in some people's minds.
I never understood how he can rail against corporations so much when he works and gets a paycheck from a university that is essentially funded by the very same corporations that he claims to despise.
It's called hypocrisy. However, the rationalisation that Marxists generally like to use is that they're "using the system's own institutions to destroy it."
Don't get me wrong, I respect the man and agree with many of his ideas.
I respected some of his ideas, until I started finding out more about the nature of both his motivations, and the behaviour of his cultists.
Never forget that when you fight something this passionately there is a great and real danger of becoming what you are fighting.
I can remember reading that when he was younger, his political inclinations were fairly openly authoritarian. I don't believe that he really values anyone's freedom at all; what he actually wants is control over others, and tries to use the concept of freedom as bait to get other people to join his "movement," because he thinks that that is a concept that they care about.
History remembers L. Ron Hubbard, too. History also remembers the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. History will remember George W. Bush in some form or another, too.
Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different.
He didn't say people should make up their own minds. He simply said that people shouldn't follow Linus.
...to consider here is Stallman's choice of terminology. As many of us who've read his material will know, Stallman is a pedant who chooses his words very deliberately and carefully.
Given this, the fact that he is telling people not to "follow" Torvalds I think says some very interesting things about his possible view of human self-responsibility. It certainly isn't the type of language I'd expect to hear from a supposed self-admitted anarchist; the single main supporting pillar of a functional hypothetical anarchist society would be the complete and total self-responsibility of all individuals involved. Stallman's wording here suggests that, rather than promoting that ideal, he expects people to choose between a given number of leaders to follow; that is, individuals external to ourselves who we abdicate self-responsibility and the need to form our own ideology to, in exchange for the convenience of being able to avoid the risk and effort required to form our own beliefs, or take our own actions that we would be required to be accountable for.
That isn't anarchic, and it isn't anything that promotes an anarchic social model. It is, by contrast, extremely centralist and authoritarian.
Stallman is issuing one of his usual periodic decrees that people whose views differ from his own should not be listened to.
The people who usually do listen to such will listen to it and say Amen, and those who usually don't, most likely still won't this time either. The world will keep turning in more or less exactly the same way it does now.
It's things like this that cause me to periodically realise that it genuinely has been extremely stupid of me to get as upset as I have about the FSF in the past. The GPL 3, and Stallman continuing to issue statements such as this, make me realise that it is a problem with its' own solution.
Sure, he keeps making new followers...but he continues to alienate people as well. Two steps forward and two steps back essentially mean that you stay in exactly the same place.
So instead, you want a system where we're all (including you) on tiered meters instead? Flat rate is the only way I can afford net access.
It doesn't matter, anyway. I don't seriously believe that even if legislation allows it, the majority of ISPs would do this; they know how important flat rate access is to people. If this gets done at all, the only way it will be is if the ISPs who implement it can somehow enforce that everyone does, and I'm not sure how that is going to happen.
I thank God that people like you aren't the majority.
If by nerds you mean the audience of this site, then "Libertarian" isn't the phrase I'd use to describe their political/economic views. It might have been once, but there's been a major swing to the left in the average Slashbot over the past two years. Anarcho-communism would be a lot closer to being the right term for this site's political/economic bias, in my own mind. The resurgence of the FSF has probably had more to do with that than anything else.
Star Trek died for me anyway with Cochrane's initial encounter with the Vulcans at the end of First Contact. That was the whole point at least that part of the film; the music for that movie is very funerary in tone, if you listen to it...it was one last look back, before the end, and it was a suitably poignant and respectful way to end the franchise as a whole, I thought.
I did not see Transformers, and I do not support the resurrection of certain things when there is no creative purpose for it, and the only reason is to cynically make money. Star Trek is dead; may it rest in peace.
Fine. I'd dearly love to see the FSF sue Microsoft. As I've already written, predicting the result is a fairly safe bet. It would be disastrous for both organisations, and it would be a Godsend for those of us who want open source to survive, but who see the FSF itself as potentially being institutionally just as tyrannical and harmful an influence ultimately as Microsoft themselves.
I quite passionately want to see both organisations entirely cease to exist, and a scenario where they could be encouraged to mutually destroy each other would be by far the most expedient means for bringing that end about.
The two biggest institutional obstacles to the truly universal, mainstream adoption of FOSS legally locking horns, and potentially destroying each other. Legally, economically, and in terms of public opinion.
Yes, please God, YES!
To me the FSF is itself just as big a problem as Microsoft, and I'd like to see it, as an organisation be destroyed to the same extent as Microsoft itself. I'd thought of how wonderful this could be if it were to happen...these two organisations crashing together and mortally wounding each other in the process...but I never dared hope...or dream...that it MIGHT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Please do sue Microsoft, FSF. You will lock yourselves and Microsoft into a legal battle which, God willing might even take years. It would prevent you almost entirely from taking action of any other kind during that time. It would exhaust you economically, and if you were to sue pre-emptively, before any concrete violation of the GPL v3 had been committed, it would irrevocably destroy you in the court of public opinion.
...if he didn't use such emotive terms as "exploding," and "minefield." It really doesn't help him sound objective when the topic he's talking about is file formats for office software, rather than undetonated mines which is what, from that wording, you might be expecting him to be talking about with such language.
Of course, it's no accident that he doesn't sound objective...it's because he isn't. I have no problem whatsoever believing that Microsoft's file standard proposals are more than likely harmful, given their track record, but I'd prefer to read an account of such from someone who doesn't sound quite so strongly like a full member of the cult of Richard Stallman.
One other thing I really wish FSF cultists could do is actually come up with your own terminology for things, rather than simply parroting your leader's loaded language ad nauseum.
If, as people have said, it's "disingenuous" of me to refer to the FSF as a cult, then maybe it's also equally disingenuous of the group's supporters to keep acting so much like cult members. You know the old saying...
"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
Yes...because as we all know, Wikipedia is a source of information that is totally neutral, unbiased, and objective, and is not subject to any form of inappropriate manipulation or interference whatsoever.
(Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.)
I am sick of seeing people write things like this.
The only thing Theo lacks a commitment to in this context is being a member of Stallman's infernal cult. "Freedom," in the FSF's usage of the word is a euphemism; you're free to do exactly what Stallman and/or his appointed mouthpieces say, and only what they say.
You're a brainwashed drone, as is anyone else who advocates the GPL while using the FSF's own terminology. If watching the contortions you have to go through in order to try and make the FSF's "logic" palatable wasn't so tragic, it'd be amusing...like watching a dog chasing its' tail.
There is nothing morally superior whatsoever about being a victim of mind control.
I loved the improved sound quality and lack of scratching sound effects, but the one thing I've never liked about CDs is their degree of fragility.
Of course, this is largely a moot point for me anywayz. These days it's all mp3 to me.;-) I have a drawer full of old CDs from the early 90s, but I virtually never look at them.
Interestingly, a couple of my CDs contain stuff I haven't been able to find online. I've got one old CD of Christian rap, Tha Mad Prophets, by E-Roc, and the album from the group Culturebeat, Serenity. Mr Vain as a single from that album has apparently survived the online transition, but virtually nothing else from the album seems to have. It's a shame, and inexplicable...I was usually only a single track person, but that entire album is fantastic...there's nothing on it that I don't like.
Slashdot Mirror
The BSD License is a permissive one if Theo wants it to be viral he should have made it viral.
No; it's permissive in terms of use. If you want to relicense it, go and get permission from the copyright holder. If you don't do that, you're breaking copyright law. Anything BSD licensed is copyrighted to someone. You're making the assumption that copyright needs a license on top of it in order to be legally enforceable, but truthfully it's no more or less enforceable than the GPL itself.
If you're supporting GPL and hence software freedom, you must respect other's freedom too. There is nothing like my way of freedom is bigger than your freedom.
The thing is, Stallman's cultists do think like that...he tells them to. The FSF's message has continually been, for years, that their way is the only acceptable way, morally, legally, and in whatever other possible sense. Co-existence with anyone who does not share his perspective is something that Richard Stallman does not tolerate the concept of.
Microsoft could take this driver tomorrow and put it in Vista without ever making the code available or acknowledging that they got it from BSD
Stop pulling the Microsoft card as justification. It's getting very, very old. Microsoft and the fear of Microsoft (and other such corporations) are just about the only thing that anyone who advocates the GPL can use to justify its' existence.
The other thing that you're not looking at is, said corporations using BSD licensed code hasn't destroyed the BSDs; if anything, in the case of OSX, it's been good for them. It's hollow, emotive fearmongering...and it really began in earnest because a couple of years ago, the FSF were creeping dangerously close to becoming entirely irrelevant. DRM and everything else that the FSF has tried to prohibit with GPL 3 is the FSF's own answer to the War on Terror. They use the fearmongering purely to justify the GPL's existence and to keep themselves as an organisation in people's minds.
The first line of a BSD license that is applied to anything reads, "Copyright , ."
In other words, it is a license which is first copyrighted by the author according to conventional copyright law, and then declares rights of use/distribution to individuals after that.
If GPL zealots rush to relicense code under said license because they hold the cynical belief that conventional copyright law on its' own is toothless, they are in effect committing acts of copyright violation. Of course, in the sick, twisted mind of a worshipper of Richard Stallman, the ends generally justify the means, so that would be seen as acceptable because they're putting said code under the GPL.
As distasteful as he might find it, Theo should possibly consider having a few legal public executions utilising the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. He'd probably only need to make a couple of examples, and I suspect the relicensing frenzy would cease.
I want to point out that in the long run it would probably be much greater than Torvalds.
You obviously want to think that, and yes, I know a lot of other people do...including Stallman himself. I think that's actually one of the main reasons why I find myself admiring Linus more...he doesn't have the sort of desperate need to be seen as great that Stallman does.
The amount of bitterness that Stallman has expressed about Torvalds really receiving any recognition at all, to me betrays a very deep sense of personal insecurity, and a degree of overall egotism which to be honest, I've always found distasteful. It also isn't something I associate with greatness, personally.
If Stallman really was a great man, then in my own mind he would simply do what he does regardless, and allow history and the public to draw their own conclusions, without caring too much about what said conclusions are. The fact that he does care so much about that, to me, draws his fundamental motivations into question.
The thing that's interesting is that according to most of psychological literature that I've read, a person usually has to be living in an isolated, controlled environment (such as a compound or ashram) in order for mind control of this degree of severity to be able to take hold (and to be maintained) in an individual.
That the FSF have been able to remotely brainwash individuals to this extent, and especially while such individuals are still presumably living within mainstream society, is truly impressive. I find myself wondering if anyone from Scientology or other similar groups have been in contact with the FSF to find out how they managed it.
"What's more important to you, GNU's huge user base or its large developer base? Stallman: I appreciate them both, but neither is what matters most. We didn't develop GNU just to make it a technical triumph, or just to have a success. Our goal was to win freedom, for ourselves and for you."
Notice also how the question deals with objective elements, and Stallman uses the answer to steer things back to dealing with that glorious emotive subjective abstraction, freedom. After reading this, you might want to compare with the actual legally binding text of the GPL 3.
As another comparitive exercise, try listening to the speech George W Bush gave at his second inauguration ceremony, and note the number of times that the words "freedom," and "liberty," were used. Then try reading the text of the Patriot Act.
The consistent element with both of these men is the degree of difference between what they say, and what is expressed/enacted by the text of the laws they advocate and empower.
Neither of them give a damn about the ability of any individual to be self-determining, or the ability of any individual to take any action that deviates in any way from their directives. The only reason why the word freedom gets used at all is because they are hoping to create a highly positive, non-rational emotional state in their listeners, and then associate themselves with that state. They actually know, deep down, that the only way they can control anyone is if the controlled individual willingly consents.
Something about RMS's stance rubs me the same way that Bush administration politics does:
That would be because they're both authoritarians in a fairly similar vein; you're obviously recognising such.
I certainly appreciate some of the stuff that RMS is trying to accomplish, but I wish he'd go about it in a different way. Or is that not possible?
The problem is that Stallman doesn't in reality give a damn about freedom any more than Bush does; the difference is that because he's associated to some degree with the generation of a lot of code, people look at that as evidence that he means what he says.
If you want to learn what he is really about, rather than listening to his own self-promotional rhetoric, all you really need to do is go and read his license itself. Then read the text of the BSD license, and ask yourself whether the BSDs have needed the type of legal apparatus that the FSF claims it needs to in order to be able to continue to exist.
about Stallman is that he once again proves it is a fine line between genius and insanity.
He might have been a genius as a programmer, but even that is open to debate in some people's minds.
I never understood how he can rail against corporations so much when he works and gets a paycheck from a university that is essentially funded by the very same corporations that he claims to despise.
It's called hypocrisy. However, the rationalisation that Marxists generally like to use is that they're "using the system's own institutions to destroy it."
Don't get me wrong, I respect the man and agree with many of his ideas.
I respected some of his ideas, until I started finding out more about the nature of both his motivations, and the behaviour of his cultists.
Never forget that when you fight something this passionately there is a great and real danger of becoming what you are fighting.
I can remember reading that when he was younger, his political inclinations were fairly openly authoritarian. I don't believe that he really values anyone's freedom at all; what he actually wants is control over others, and tries to use the concept of freedom as bait to get other people to join his "movement," because he thinks that that is a concept that they care about.
History remembers L. Ron Hubbard, too. History also remembers the likes of Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot. History will remember George W. Bush in some form or another, too.
What exactly was your point, again?
Making people blindly follow you is religion (which you implied by using the word 'Amen'), making people look at all arguments and have them make up their own mind is completely different.
He didn't say people should make up their own minds. He simply said that people shouldn't follow Linus.
...to consider here is Stallman's choice of terminology. As many of us who've read his material will know, Stallman is a pedant who chooses his words very deliberately and carefully.
Given this, the fact that he is telling people not to "follow" Torvalds I think says some very interesting things about his possible view of human self-responsibility. It certainly isn't the type of language I'd expect to hear from a supposed self-admitted anarchist; the single main supporting pillar of a functional hypothetical anarchist society would be the complete and total self-responsibility of all individuals involved. Stallman's wording here suggests that, rather than promoting that ideal, he expects people to choose between a given number of leaders to follow; that is, individuals external to ourselves who we abdicate self-responsibility and the need to form our own ideology to, in exchange for the convenience of being able to avoid the risk and effort required to form our own beliefs, or take our own actions that we would be required to be accountable for.
That isn't anarchic, and it isn't anything that promotes an anarchic social model. It is, by contrast, extremely centralist and authoritarian.
He clearly states that Linus has a different point of view. How's that equal to saying people should not listen to what Linus has to say?
He said that people should not "follow" Linus. How would you define that?
RMS doesn't want you to listen to him and simply say 'Amen', he wants you to listen to him and understand why freedom is important.
Euphemism FTW.
Stallman is issuing one of his usual periodic decrees that people whose views differ from his own should not be listened to.
The people who usually do listen to such will listen to it and say Amen, and those who usually don't, most likely still won't this time either. The world will keep turning in more or less exactly the same way it does now.
It's things like this that cause me to periodically realise that it genuinely has been extremely stupid of me to get as upset as I have about the FSF in the past. The GPL 3, and Stallman continuing to issue statements such as this, make me realise that it is a problem with its' own solution.
Sure, he keeps making new followers...but he continues to alienate people as well. Two steps forward and two steps back essentially mean that you stay in exactly the same place.
So instead, you want a system where we're all (including you) on tiered meters instead? Flat rate is the only way I can afford net access.
It doesn't matter, anyway. I don't seriously believe that even if legislation allows it, the majority of ISPs would do this; they know how important flat rate access is to people. If this gets done at all, the only way it will be is if the ISPs who implement it can somehow enforce that everyone does, and I'm not sure how that is going to happen.
I thank God that people like you aren't the majority.
If by nerds you mean the audience of this site, then "Libertarian" isn't the phrase I'd use to describe their political/economic views. It might have been once, but there's been a major swing to the left in the average Slashbot over the past two years. Anarcho-communism would be a lot closer to being the right term for this site's political/economic bias, in my own mind. The resurgence of the FSF has probably had more to do with that than anything else.
Star Trek died for me anyway with Cochrane's initial encounter with the Vulcans at the end of First Contact. That was the whole point at least that part of the film; the music for that movie is very funerary in tone, if you listen to it...it was one last look back, before the end, and it was a suitably poignant and respectful way to end the franchise as a whole, I thought.
I did not see Transformers, and I do not support the resurrection of certain things when there is no creative purpose for it, and the only reason is to cynically make money. Star Trek is dead; may it rest in peace.
Fine. I'd dearly love to see the FSF sue Microsoft. As I've already written, predicting the result is a fairly safe bet. It would be disastrous for both organisations, and it would be a Godsend for those of us who want open source to survive, but who see the FSF itself as potentially being institutionally just as tyrannical and harmful an influence ultimately as Microsoft themselves.
I quite passionately want to see both organisations entirely cease to exist, and a scenario where they could be encouraged to mutually destroy each other would be by far the most expedient means for bringing that end about.
The two biggest institutional obstacles to the truly universal, mainstream adoption of FOSS legally locking horns, and potentially destroying each other. Legally, economically, and in terms of public opinion.
Yes, please God, YES!
To me the FSF is itself just as big a problem as Microsoft, and I'd like to see it, as an organisation be destroyed to the same extent as Microsoft itself. I'd thought of how wonderful this could be if it were to happen...these two organisations crashing together and mortally wounding each other in the process...but I never dared hope...or dream...that it MIGHT ACTUALLY HAPPEN.
Please do sue Microsoft, FSF. You will lock yourselves and Microsoft into a legal battle which, God willing might even take years. It would prevent you almost entirely from taking action of any other kind during that time. It would exhaust you economically, and if you were to sue pre-emptively, before any concrete violation of the GPL v3 had been committed, it would irrevocably destroy you in the court of public opinion.
Words cannot express the joy that that would bring me.
Yep...it ought to be the new motto of the FSF.
"Enjoy the FREEDOM, and don't worry about the cognitive dissonance. It goes away if you don't think about it, eventually."
...if he didn't use such emotive terms as "exploding," and "minefield." It really doesn't help him sound objective when the topic he's talking about is file formats for office software, rather than undetonated mines which is what, from that wording, you might be expecting him to be talking about with such language.
Of course, it's no accident that he doesn't sound objective...it's because he isn't. I have no problem whatsoever believing that Microsoft's file standard proposals are more than likely harmful, given their track record, but I'd prefer to read an account of such from someone who doesn't sound quite so strongly like a full member of the cult of Richard Stallman.
One other thing I really wish FSF cultists could do is actually come up with your own terminology for things, rather than simply parroting your leader's loaded language ad nauseum.
If, as people have said, it's "disingenuous" of me to refer to the FSF as a cult, then maybe it's also equally disingenuous of the group's supporters to keep acting so much like cult members. You know the old saying...
"If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
*Experiences sudden violent fit of coughing*
Yes...because as we all know, Wikipedia is a source of information that is totally neutral, unbiased, and objective, and is not subject to any form of inappropriate manipulation or interference whatsoever.
Their policy says so.
Were you wanting a reply to this? If you were, have the basic courage to reply using a named account.
(Think of how it would be if someone with a strong personality like Theo, but lacking the commitment to freedom, were to release something like openbsd under this license.)
I am sick of seeing people write things like this.
The only thing Theo lacks a commitment to in this context is being a member of Stallman's infernal cult. "Freedom," in the FSF's usage of the word is a euphemism; you're free to do exactly what Stallman and/or his appointed mouthpieces say, and only what they say.
You're a brainwashed drone, as is anyone else who advocates the GPL while using the FSF's own terminology. If watching the contortions you have to go through in order to try and make the FSF's "logic" palatable wasn't so tragic, it'd be amusing...like watching a dog chasing its' tail.
There is nothing morally superior whatsoever about being a victim of mind control.
I loved the improved sound quality and lack of scratching sound effects, but the one thing I've never liked about CDs is their degree of fragility.
;-) I have a drawer full of old CDs from the early 90s, but I virtually never look at them.
Of course, this is largely a moot point for me anywayz. These days it's all mp3 to me.
Interestingly, a couple of my CDs contain stuff I haven't been able to find online. I've got one old CD of Christian rap, Tha Mad Prophets, by E-Roc, and the album from the group Culturebeat, Serenity. Mr Vain as a single from that album has apparently survived the online transition, but virtually nothing else from the album seems to have. It's a shame, and inexplicable...I was usually only a single track person, but that entire album is fantastic...there's nothing on it that I don't like.