You do realize we were screening for all the things that would have prevented "building airplane-collision" before 2001, don't you?

Not if it's impossible to enter the pilot compartment from the passenger compartment.

And that is why all the arguments being made that the IT departments aren't responsible for companies sticking with IE6 are nonsensical.

Some of your comments are a bit ill-conceived. There are plenty of places where taking metro and bus are faster than driving. Sharing an apartment/house with 2-4 people can mitigate the cost of housing. You can also buy healthy food for cheap and growing food in a garden is free. Obviously you would forgo some of the creature comforts that a lot of Americans take for granted, but it would not necessarily be as dire as you describe. Just because people can't stay out of debt because they refuse to cancel their cable doesn't mean that everyone is fiscally retarded.

If the internet is that essential you can spend the money you would be dumping on full desktop systems to purchase redundant internet connections. If that fails, go to Starbucks and user their wireless...

They give that version the name unstable for a reason. Try if if you don't mind your shit breaking every once in a while.

I've never had dependency problems with apt-get. Where are you getting this?

Obviously the FSF cannot sue over someone else's copyright without their consent. The quote I provided clearly stated:

They do, however accept reports of suspected GPL violations and assist GPL developers in upholding their rights.

That would be the Free Software Foundation ( http://www.fsf.org/licensing ).

How much success has there been comparing object code to determine whether source code copying has occurred?

I never said that GPL was about complete freedom. I did not say GPL was about freedom to distribute however you want. While you may not agree with the restrictions of the GPL, I think you would have a hard time arguing that it is not fair. After all, the fact that you accepting the license means that you are getting someone else's work for free. I think its only fair to return the favor. The bottom line is that the GPL is the best known way of ensuring a healthy source-sharing community. The Microsoft way does not allow derivative works and forks and the BSD way relies solely on the good will of developers to contribute back code. Can all systems of code sharing work? Absolutely.

You must not have read what you quoted, because I only talk about the freedom to: a) obtain the code b) modify the code The only stipulation I mention is that this is guaranteed to everyone. Closing the source of the program obviously removes my freedom to modify the code you produced doesn't it? You remind me of people that say things like, "America is a free country. I can do whatever I want." Yes, America is a free country, and no, you cannot do whatever you want. The GPL guarantees everyone certain freedoms, but no, you can't do whatever you want with it.

Maybe your confusion is due to the fact that you think the GPL zealot crowd actually cares about copyright. What we care about is freedom. In the GPL's case, it is guaranteeing everyone the freedom to take a program and modify it however they desire. In this case, the concern is about the freedom to use software one has purchased however one desires. As far as I know, this has not been settled by court as copyright infringement. Incidentally, you don't have to support everything about copyright or detest it completely. You can see good and bad implications and places where there is room for improvement. Its perfectly reasonable for me to want to see GPL content covered by copyright and not desire that 40-year old books also be covered.

Whenever I've had to deal with multiple emails, I have used gmail's ability to download mail from other servers and tag them automatically for me...

I my post was on capitalism because that is the word the GP used. Capitalism exists with government interference, and in that case cannot be considered free enterprise. For example, corporations that received assistance from the government during the bail-out, while still part of a capitalist system, are not operating on free enterprise principles, as they depend on the government.