In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes: > > > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, > > Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >>No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed > >>at no cost. > > > > Where did you get that definition? I don't think most people's use > > of the term excludes free programs. > > When there is a charge on them, it usually does. Few people will call > Redhat Enterprise Linux "freeware" since you will be hard to put to > get it outside of an expensive subscription arrangement, in spite of > it being free software. I don't think that contradicts him. Alfred's definition of freeware specifically *excludes* free software -- it's distributed at no cost, but must be limited in other ways (e.g. source code is not available, or the license prohibits modification). E.g. he would say that GNU Emacs is *not* freeware, despite the fact that you can get it at no cost. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
