4 ms·

> Objectively, that makes him hostile to any non-corporate entity. You can't just put the word "objectively" at the beginning of something and make it objectiv

> Objectively, that makes him hostile to any non-corporate entity. You can't just put the word "objectively" at the beginning of something and make it objective. He's not hostile to those kids in Africa who don't care about software freedom but are not dead because they didn't get malaria. I get that we're on HN, but this idea that the good of software is somehow the most important good is just lunacy. I genuinely cannot fathom how anyone can see stopping software patents as more important (or even remotely close to the same level of importance) than stopping malaria.

pannSun 4y ago
> the good of software But it's not just the good of software, because software is eating the world. Software is in your phone, in the tractor that grows your food, in the gene sequencing machine (and gene sequencing software) used to fight disease, in self-driving cars, and in non-self-driving ones too. And you can bet there will be software in automatic weed killing robots. It's how you access your bank, the news, even government services. It's how you find a date, a taxi, how you order food. It. Is. Everywhere. On net, if you were at risk of malaria, he is not hostile. But to the average global citizen, and especially their descendants in the future, he is hostile. Because the line between software freedom, and just freedom, is vanishing, and fast.