On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 01:25:20PM EST, Bob Proulx wrote: > Chris Jones wrote: > > Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the > > > freedoms to use, study, and modify the software. > > > > How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not > > afford it in the first place? > > The cost is not a monetary cost.
[..] On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 03:33:08PM EST, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > In <[email protected]>, Chris Jones wrote: > >On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:25:00PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > > > >[..] > > > >> Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the > >> freedoms to use, study, and modify the software. > > > >How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not > >afford it in the first place? > > Those are the rights guaranteed by Free Software to entities receiving > the software. They do not make a requirement that everyone is able to > receive the software. [..] Thanks for reminding me that the discussion was in reference to the GPL concept of ‘Free Software¹’ as stated in its preamble, rather than the generally accepted meaning of ‘free software’ in everyday English. All the same, from a general perspective, I still pretty much stand by what I wrote, namely that the relative success of GNU/Linux and other non-proprietory software and the incredible diversity of options we now have to populate our machines is first and foremost due to the fact that said software is available for download at no monetary cost to the user/developer.. even if at least where GNU software is concerned, this aspect is only a side-effect. I mean, what good does it do to a would-be ‘Free Software’ developer to eventually ‘get credit for his work’ if he cannot afford the luxury of a C compiler to start off with? Incidentally, I became a user of free software after I bought a laptop on a whim, when after a couple weeks, I got bored with the copy of Win98 that came with it. I resented the fact that I did not have the freedom to customize it to my liking save for trivial stuff like changing the size of my fonts or the colors of my GUI. So I drove to the store and paid $179.00 for a boxed copy of RedHat 6.2. Only later did I find out about ‘gratis’. Later yet about ‘libre’.. I, for one should know the difference. cj ¹ Where it becomes even more confusing for humble users like myself is that ‘Free Software’ apparently means different things depending on who you listen to: http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
