Subject: Re: [ppc-mobo] Re: GPL-like hardware design license?
From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Oct 1999 05:00:08 -0600 (MDT)

    No, that's what you want. You want people to give up the freedom to do as
    they please with so-called "free" software, because it isn't what you want
    to do and may not promote your goals.

I do not believe people should have the "freedom" to "do as they
please" in general.  Some activities are wrong and should be stopped.
For example, I do not think people should be allowed to rob or beat up
others, and it is a travesty to use the word "freedom" for those
activities.

I put proprietary software in the same moral category as robbing and
beating people up.  Use the GPL to prevent you from doing so is the
moral analogue of a policeman who uses a gun to stop you from
committing those evil acts.

     So you force people to accept a
    restrictive license, the GPL on a take it or leave it basis, which is no
    different than MS's attitude about their license.

We and Microsoft use the same tool, the same weapon--copyright.  If
you wish to release a proprietary program, then you plan to use this
weapon also.  So what you say here about me applies to you as well.

I don't think that right or wrong is determined mainly by the choice
of tool or weapon.  What matters is what you use it for.  Microsoft
uses it to subjugate people; we use it to prevent subjugation.  In my
view, the former is evil, the latter is good, because it is a matter
of blocking evil.

You don't have to agree with my views, but they are consistent.

If you claim that the weapon of copyright is evil regardless of what
it is used for, then you are being inconsistent, if you propose to
distribute proprietary software.