On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 12:49 +0000, Juha Siltala wrote:
> On 2004-11-17, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 2004-11-17 at 08:28 +0000, Juha Siltala wrote:
> >> On 2004-11-16, Ron Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, 2004-11-16 at 22:50 +0000, Juha Siltala wrote:
> >> >> On 2004-11-16, Rick Friedman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> >> > Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> >> >> But F-Prot sucks by default because it is nonfree. Check out clama=
> >> >> > Hmmm... except F-Prot for Linux for the workstation is free for pers=
> >> >> That's not free. They just don't charge you any money.
> >> > Of course it is.
> >> >
> >> > $ dict free
> >> > [snip]
> >> > {Free cost}, freedom from charges or expenses. --South.
> >> > [snip]
> >> That's hardly what free/nonfree refers to in the context of Debian=20
> >> software, and I'm sure you know that.
> >
> > Ask anyone on debian-legal if the difference between libre &=20
> > money-free is relevant to Debian.
>
> Exactly. The only problem is I fail to see any difference our opinions.
> I'm saying F-Prot for personal use is not free. Someone says it's free
> because it doesn't cost anything. I'm saying being gratis doesn't make
> F-Prot free in ways that Debian uses the word. You're saying the same
> thing. And here we are in the middle of an argument, which is kinda weird.The difference is that, since the English/American(?) definition of the word "free" is so broad, we should be careful to put the word "free" in context when comparing/contrasting free-as-in-speech and free-as-in-beer. In that context, terms like FLOSS or software-libre (or even FAIS(1) and FAIB(2)) shoud be used instead. IMO, of course. 1) free-as-in-speech 2) free-as-in-beer -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. Jefferson, LA USA PGP Key ID 8834C06B After seeing all the viruses, trojan horses, worms and Reply mails from stupidly-configured anti-virus software that's been hurled upon the internet for the last 3 years, and the time/money that is spent protecting against said viruses, trojan horses & worms, I can only conclude that Microsoft is dangerous to the internet and American commerce, and it's software should be banned.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
