3 ms·

I understand this and I won't do such thing myself, what I mean is in case of Stallman he would be hypocritical if he's against it.

• _delirium 15y ago
  Stallman's in favor of software users having the right to modify their software and redistribute it. He's not some kind of "information wants to be free" cyberpunk, and doesn't have similar opinions in general. For example, he thinks it's perfectly fine for books to be copyrighted.
  • vgrichina 15y ago
    IMO that's exactly being hypocritical. Why book users should be prevented from modifying and redistributing them if software users are allowed this right? That simply makes no sense.
    • _delirium 15y ago
      His argument, which seems pretty reasonable to me, is that software is a tool, whereas books are expression, and sees a stronger argument for it being important that people be able to modify their own tools (he does include some kinds of "tool-like" books, like instruction manuals, in that category). I don't think it's useful to charge people with "hypocrisy" as an attempt to preemptively shut down debate about whether different classes of works ought to be treated differently, in any case.
      • deadcyclo 15y ago
        AFAIK, based on the last talk by RMS I attended he condoned copyright on works of fiction only, not on works of fact. So no copyright on manuals, textbooks, scientific articles, etc.