In article <DREIER.92Dec10121615@phnom-penh.berkeley.edu> dreier@phnom-penh.berkeley.edu writes:
In article <Bz22pL.GEz@mtholyoke.edu> jbotz@mtholyoke.edu (Jurgen Botz) writes: Some say that the FSF boycott of Apple is pointless simply because it's
too insignificant for Apple to be effective. To that I say that all
effective political action has to start with consistent application of
principles. The LPF/FSF are "doing the right thing", and if not enough
others follow suit to make it effective, that's a shame, but not a reason
for the LPF/FSF to stop what they are doing.
It is not at all clear to me that the LPF/FSF are "doing the right
thing." My livelihood depends on my ability to support myself by
creating ideas that others find valuable.
Wait a second, wait a second here. Let's make it clear who we're
talking about here. The LPF seeks to restore the status quo, that
is, you can copyright a program that you've written, but you can't
protect an idea, only the implementation of that idea. The FSF, on
the other hand, wants software to be a service, not a product. The
goals of the LPF and the FSF are, if at all related, orthogonal to
