>And that's missing the point. I shouldn't HAVE to look at the code. >

You shouldn't have to look under a hood either.

Sometimes it makes sense.

How come peoples books mysteriously disappear from Kindles?

If you were free too look, you'd be free to know.

But you're not.

Some people think they should be free to look under the hood. That their cpu shouldn't be operating by principles of a firm rather than a user.

Just because you don't want that freedom, doesn't mean others are stupid for wanting it.

Shame on you.



>Your explanation falls apart. If you are given a car at no charge do you inspect every detail of it to make sure every little thing is working correctly? Do you take apart the engine? Do you dismantle the tranny? No. You do not. You examine external evidence that things are working correctly.
>
>I would much rather buy something that has gone through extensive testing to ensure it's correct rather than grab some unknown version with unknown history and have to waste time and yes, money, to tear it apart and find out if every thing works as expected.
>
>Free software is not free in any sense of the word.






>>Clearly, you cannot counter them because you ndo not understand a lick of it.
>>
>>Free has nothing to do with cost.
>>
>>Free != gratis.
>>
>>Stallman explained this to me.
>>
>>The software and code itself can cost thousands of dollars.
>>
>>That you can examine the code, and verify it is only doing things with your data you expect it to is the freedom.
>>
>>It would be like getting a car at no charge, but forbidden from looking under the hood or puainting it the color you want.
>>
>>That's not free in the context of the free software foundation.