On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:32:33 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 14:27:34 -0400, Barry Margolin >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>>Whether they should be able to is of purely academic interest. The fact >>>is that they *did* do this, and this is what the phrase "free software" >>>now means in the industry. You can dislike it all you want, but you >>>can't legitimately claim that it didn't happen, and ignoring it will >>>simply lead to confusion in discussions like this. >> >> So will ignoring the fact that "free <any product in commerce>" means >> without charge. > >Like "free press"? If "press" is a product in commerce, yes. If someone is giving you a printing press and not taking anything in return for it, it's a free press. "Press", as in "the fourth estate", isn't an item in commerce, is it? That I have to explain this points out how ambiguous the choice of "free software" not meaning "software for no charge" is. -- It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
