lackup (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

i love your thoughts. too bad you're such a weirdo. i'll carry your message without eating shit off my feet. love you rms

BigBobsh2o (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@dalellll Software is sort of like a research paper or any other type of paper that enables someone to make advancements (although software is much more lucrative) . People put copyrights on papers. People license what they do with those papers (who can use it , how much can they see, etc) Why should software be any different. If someone wrote a program it's like intellectual property. I believe in real freedom. Meaning you can do both free and non-free.I use both.

dalellll (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@TheQuiZNoKid I prefer superior technology that can get the job done as well - that's one of the reasons to go for open source (all of the most expensive proprietary software i have is crippled in some way - but strangely enough, none of my free software is). Even better is free software, where i don't destroy the concept of fairness in law by buying corporate controlled software. And no-ones saying you should "write the software", you stupid dumbass. Oh my GOD I hate YouTube-tards.

dalellll (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@BigBobsh2o Dude, you missed the boat on the entire thing. You are asking questions that have been answered decades ago. Are you daft? Half the internet is dedicated to explaining the problems with licensing. Free software where your lack of programming skill limits you is substantially different to software where a corporation skews the law to limit you. (Free software will never criminalise you for some mundane or entirely reasonable activity, for one thing.)

TheQuiZNoKid (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

Hmm Open Source is great but hmm I prefer superior technology that can get the job done. Its not my job to write the software I just need to use the software to complete a job, Something this fat fuck should think about.

BigBobsh2o (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

The average user is ALWAYS at the mercy of the developer(s). Why because the average person doesn't know code. If it's not a corporation in control it's someone else, and free software will never change that. Developers need to be in control. And what is so immoral about charging and licensing a product that you made?

JesusManson323 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@JesusManson323 I didn't understand the difference between "Free(dom)" software and "Open Source" software until I read Stallman's web site shortly after I made that comment. Now I totally understand that Open Source is not necessarily Free(dom).

roflschofel (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

@JesusManson323 You mean free software

JesusManson323 (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I love Freedom.I love Open Source software.

aaronbono (November 30, 1999 at 12:00 am)

I vote for freedom. Freedom for developers to give software for free. Freedom for developers to charge for their software. What amazes me is that, even with so many free programs out there, people choose more often than not to BUY instead of download for free. This is because your money is power over who you buy from. Paying for your software gives the purchaser POWER to influence the direction of where the software goes. With free software, you are at the mercy of the software developer.