Moving the goal posts: GPL: GNG is Not GNU

How GNU GPL Software Developers Move the Goal Posts

i.e. it's called a double standard

See an example of GNUtards restricting speech (consulting)
"I think it would be fantastic. On paper, it seems pretty stupid to pay for GPL code. We hear the phrase “paying for support and product updates” repeatedly but it still seems as though we’re paying for the code first. "

It's perfectly okay to restrict the consulting, books, education - but not okay to restrict software?

MIT open courseware (i.e. Walter Lewin) is a perfect example of how education, consulting, and information can be free and open.. so why aren'y GNUtards releasing their education and consulting about software to the public? We have something called digital microphones and cameras... This is not the 1960's when we didn't have digital cameras. So why aren't GNUtards releasing their education about software for free? Isn't a mailing list also an example of how information can be mirrored and freed without charging hefty fees (mailing lists are Free consulting). Yet Stallman has the nerve to restrict his speech on cruise ships, and companies like MySQL have the nerve to restrict the education about mysql and the consulting about mysql to only those who have millions of dollars and can afford it.

GNU tards often sell books that are glued together with copyright on them. They can't make money from their code, so they make money from selling information about their code. Hypocrisy alarm: you still are restricting information from people. Information = code = words. Shouldn't GNU tards release all their books under GNU Free Documentation License and throw away all unethical Orielly books which cannot be freely replicated? It's called "PDF File".. something you can replicate at virtually no cost.

Imagining a GNUtard like Richard Stallman throwing away all his unethical books (all books are unethical since they are not PDF's) is like imagining that crazy illogical Vegan who throws away all his leather coats because they are an animal product, rather than keeping the leather coats since they have already been made and throwing them away doesn't solve the problem of animal cruelty (buying new leather coats is encouraging more animals to be harmed, but throwing away old leather that has already been produced, doesn't make any sense).

You can imagine Stallman throwing away his copy of MS Windows 3.1 because touching it with his fingers would be unethical - even though technically one could use Win 3.1 just like a vegan could wear an old leather coat that already exists; you can't change history to make that leather coat of the past not exist. If you've done any research on Stallman and his "ethics" you will see that he doesn't touch any software that hasn't been blessed with his freetardism (read up on google about how stallman doesn't touch laptops or computers unless it's all 100 percent freetard software).

But if Stallman steps into a car or truck for transportation, this is unethical since many cars and trucks don't have shop manuals in PDF form that people are allowed to digitally replicate (dealerships restrict you from getting the pdf and don't allow you to copy it freely), and the car or truck may have closed source proprietary computer code in the fuel injection MAF system or other integrated circuits that have been flashed with proprietary C code. So Stallman won't touch laptops with MS Windows on them or even Debian's that aren't purely freetardist, so why does stallman step into Cars, trucks, Bus systems, Trains - not everything about them is free! He's simply a deluded one trick pony whining about software freedom while ignoring everything else in society that is closed, including Stallman's proprietary consulting on cruise ships.

If Stallman had access to a time machine, it is guaranteed he would go back in time and delete all proprietary software (which jokingly would probably remove unix from ever existing, and Stallman would likely not even be a software GNUtard after modifying time, he would be some useless philosopher rambling about politics or social sciences, maybe he could be arguing with Noam Chomsky instead of arguing about GNU).

Stallman's religious preaching about what should be free is a bit like a communist trying to tell you to stop buying BMW or Mercedes or Chevrolet cars. Cars don't contain all the source code on how to build the car from scratch, nor do they contain all the tools to work on the cars - and often the PDF shop manuals are not free to replicate either - you have to pay to get a copy and you aren't allowed to replicate those copies. Stallman focuses on the freedom of software and fails to grasp that everything in society is not free , not just software - Stallman charges hefty consulting fees on cruise ships, which is a heavy speech restriction. Pay me one thousand dollars, otherwise the words aren't flowing out of my mouth on the cruise ship. Freedom indeed. It's not about cost! It has nothing to do with it!

If Stallman stopped restricting his consulting to only those who can pay for it, and he gave it away free and replicated it like MIT Open Courseware - he would starve to death because he logically couldn't figure out that ALL things in capitalist societies are restricted, not just software - stallman is a capitalist proprietary consultant trying to promote communist software - logical fail. RMS = FAIL. Consulting and education about GNU software can all be replicated the same way MIT open courseware can, therefore the consulting must be made free and open too just as software is - if Stallman is to not be a hypocrite. But then he would starve, so he has to restrict something, i.e. moving the goal posts.

It's called Double Standard

It's called not practicing what you preach