"Trying to use Newt Gingrich's name to defend Richard Stallman? LMAO, that's like saying giving your property away is the definition of capitalism! You guys sure are desperate to steal conservative terms and names to promote your "copy"leftist views."
First off, I don't think Newt qualifies as a conservative any more. He is as Beltway as they come. Second, I'm not using Newt Gingrich's name for anything. I was picking a person I consider boring to listen to, that is clearly not a Commie--I could have used Wm F. Buckley. As usual, you can't defend your own posts so you cherrypick and misconstrue those of others. I'm sad people like you consider yourselves conservatives. Truly, you must be a pathetic ambassador for the movement when you are faced with anyone who disagrees with you, if you treat them as you treat those who are arguing with you here, lying about their posts and motivations. You cannot help but drive people away from your point of view with such a feeble ability to debate ideas--even if you were right, you couldn't demonstrate it logically.
Simply because I see zero value in your argument, which you haven'togically expounded on in the least. Proprietary software has spawned 2 of the 10 richest men in the world, and your (or Stallman's who you are defending) stated goal of making all software free will certainly destroy them, and prevent anyone else in that industry from ever achieving it again. You call your theory of giving away software as "market expanding", when it would obviously be "market destroying".
Take an example, like Apache web server software. Where are the profits for those that develop and distribute the software? Answer: there are none. As in zero (0).
Yet this is the model you propose for the entire industry? You call that market expanding? Then wonder why I laugh at you instead of further debate? Why should I, when you can't grasp the simple concept of ANYTHING > zero.