Here is a Stallman's story:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I don't know exactly how trusted computing works, but could't we find the encryption keys inside our TC-compliant hardware and get them published?

In the story above, Dan gives his password to his future wife, but, what would have happened if he gave it to the entire community as well?
In the imaginary dystopian future, he would have been jailed, but here, in the real world, no one can arrest you for having given away a number which regards your hardware only, isn't it?

If anyone who doesn't care about TC, and, I suppose, normal end users don't, publishes her keys, content protection can't be achieved, isn't it?

Perhaps Stallman did only write a story, and I have just said lots of foolish things...

You made me look up a word. In case anyone else was wondering:

Main Entry: dys·to·pia
Pronunciation: (")dis-'tO-pE-&
Function: noun
Etymology: New Latin, from dys- + -topia (as in utopia)
1 : an imaginary place where people lead dehumanized and often fearful lives
2 : ANTI-UTOPIA
- dys·to·pi·an /-pE-&n/ adjective

FROM: http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionar...h&va=dystopian

EDIT: And I feel I have to point out that the "free exchange of information" was the central ideal of the "hacker ethic." Though admitedly that ideal has pretty much been lost today. In any case, it wasn't Stallman's brain child.
http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/a...?articleid=394

eh, is the thread I started senseless or not?

Anyway, I'm not an english speaker, so I may use unusual words to express simple concepts...I'm a bit embarassed too

No problem understanding you here. It's just a lot of the things Stallman gets credit for predate the GPL. In fact, I'd say he took the hacker ethic a completely different direction with his "copy-left" treatise. Unlike what article I linked to and the book it references claim, open-source didn't even exist when the word hacker was coined. So I'm pretty sure the ethic didn't include a directive to program as a community service. It merely meant there's something fundamentally wrong with intentionally keeping people in the dark for your own gain/power. Something primitive and uncivilized even, like some Aztec priest using his knowledge of astronomy to make the people believe an eclipse was the result of their disobedience... or something like that. hehe

a priest is actually a dramatist and normally is the one who die first ... in a sense , i think stallman is a great man ...


//ducked ...

.

That's right crito;
I couldn't actually read your link because it requested an account to access the document, but I got the point with your explanation anyway.