David Schwartz (firstname.lastname@example.org) writes:
> > Unfortunately, the law being "unjust and evil" (IYHO) doesn't stop it
> > being the law. Breaking it still has unpleasant consequences for the
> > culprit. If you make using Linux illegal in that country, you're just
> > surrendering that chunk of Linux's potential audience/market - for what?
And it being the law, is that always right? Is that your final appeal? To
the law? If the revolutionaries in the US Revolutionary War had that kind of
attitude, we in the US would be, as Patrick Henry said, "totally disarmed,
and [...] a British guard [...] stationed in every house..."
> Suppose Scotland banned the ext2 file system. Would you advocate that it be
> removed from the Linux kernel?
> Or, put another way, should Linux be dumbed down to make it legal in the
> most restrictive possible environment? Or should Linux follow it's natural
> development path?
> IMO, it would be the greatest possible victory for totalitarian and
> restrictive regimes if they got to dictate to the entire rest of the planet
> what features everyone else's software would come with.
Is it right to surrender freedom for market share? Is that what we are being
asked to do?
-- Ed Carp, N7EKG email@example.com 940/367-2744 cell phone http://www.pobox.com/~erc
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to firstname.lastname@example.org Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jun 07 2000 - 21:00:12 EST