[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???

From: Parker, Ron
Subject: [Gnu-arch-users] OT: Slavery???
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 10:15:25 -0600

> From: Stephen J. Turnbull [mailto:address@hidden

> >>>>> "Tom" == Tom Lord <address@hidden> writes:
>     > From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <address@hidden>
>     > Ie, that people have a lot of hostility toward BK and Larry
>     > McVoy.
>             The spirit of the Bitkeeper license is the spirit of the
>             whip hand. It is the spirit that says, "You have no right
>             to use Bitkeeper, only temporary privileges that we can
>             revoke. Be grateful that we allow you to use Bitkeeper. Be
>             grateful, and don't do anything we dislike, or we may
>             revoke those privileges." It is the spirit of proprietary
>             software. Every non-free license is designed to control
>             the users more or less. Outrage at this spirit is the
>             reason for the free software movement. (By contrast, the
>             open source movement prefers to play down this same
>             outrage.)
>       --Richard M. Stallman
>     Tom> Reasonably,
> Anyone who deliberately equates intellectual property with slavery has
> abandoned reason and embraced demagogery.  A slave cannot say "no" to
> his owner, no, not even at the cost of substantial inconvenience in
> contributing to Linux.  He says "no" to his owner at his life's peril.

I usually follow your logic, but I must have missed the antecedent slavery
reference with respect to "intellectual property".  The closest reference I
was able to find was an RMS interview at, wherein he likens certain
jobs in "enterprise zones" to slavery.  A statement which would certainly be
true of many factory jobs in China and other countries with a non-Western
perspective on human rights.  I realize this is not a popular statement,
although true.  Stallman's comment came up as part of an answer to a
question about the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS) Agreement, but had nothing to do directly with IP.

Could please fill in my mental gaps in your argument?

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]