On Dec 13, 2007 5:52 PM, Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

quoted text
> Freedom means having control of your own life; "Freedom of choice" is
> a partly accurate and partly misleading way to describe that, and
> taking that expression too literally leads to mistaken conclusions.
> Thus, I say I advocate "freedom" -- not "freedom of choice".

No one has control of their own life. Why? Because in a society we are
not separate from others. By definition. We enter, or rather are
entered at birth, into a social contract which includes us, the
government and other members of that society.


quoted text
>  In
> other words, a society in which non-free software more or less doesn't
> exist.

And there you go denying non-free software, by your definition, the
very right to exist. How free is that? Perhaps we should tar up all
the non-free software in the world and untar it in a data-crypt on a
remote island where the murky odour of its tainted code does not
attack our refined sensibilities? Is that acceptable on the road to a
free, by your definition, society?

You use a lot of grand words: good, evil, freedom, but seem unaware of
the logical conclusions of your own thinking, or for that matter, the
several millenia of debate surrounding these concepts. If I take your
words at face-value I must conclude that you are either seriously
misguided or downright dangerous. In any case, you do not stand for
any definition of freedom that I could ever subscribe to.

But I would actually like to thank you for having made this clear to me.

michael