2008/1/6, Richard Stallman :

quoted text
>     >From the look of Stallman's message, it seems as if he thinks copying

>     software is totally free, which in reality it costs a bit more than

>     just plain free.

>

> That's often true.  (And even if it doesn't cost you money, it may

> take some of your time.)  But I don't think that changes the issue.

> Zero-cost or small cost isn't the crucial distinction.

>

> The crucial point is that copying software is practical and feasible

> for computer users in general.   We can and do copy software, unless

> someone goes out of his way to stop us.

>

>     In the case of hardware, it would mean it is too expensive to copy...

>     which it could be... so does that mean freedom to copy something

>     became irrelevant as the cost of copying becomes relatively expensive?

>

> When something is impractical to copy, then the question of whether we

> are free to do so is purely academic, and I see no reason to fight

> about it.  When something is feasible to copy, then the question of

> whether we are free to do so makes a real difference.

>

The key-phrase I noticed in your message are "computer users in general".
That itself has problems. Do you mean home computer users? From what I

know, most large companies, including hardware vendors, and

governments uses computers as well, so they are too "computer users",

thus copy hardware aren't impractical for every "computer users in

general".
So I take it you are referring to home/small business computer users?
Oh, don't forget that there are people who will produce the hardware

for your given documentation at a practical cost even for the average

home user, as stated earlier.
--

Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.

See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html

09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0