In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wesley J. Landaker
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
In message <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wouter Verhelst
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes
>That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines "fee" as
>"something involving the transfer of money". If it isn't, then the GPL
>is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are
>required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries
>from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the
>right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have,
>which could be considered to be a fee.
And what about societies without money? "fee" does NOT equal "money".
Your "common knowledge" is not my understanding ...
Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which "societies without money" are
you talking about?
There's groups of friends who do each other favours.
There's people who are so poor they have to barter - you're aware, of
course, that in Eastern Europe that was quite normal - cash was
worthless. Even between businesses and governments - there was a
thriving barter market worth millions of pounds without any money
changing hands at all...
There's plenty of "societies" where I live (England) who have a system
(yes I know it's like money) where you earn points and trade them.
And one only has to look close to home at the world of Free Software,
where code and respect are the items of currency, not money :-)
Cheers,
Wol
--
Anthony W. Youngman - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
