At 06:09 PM 9/17/99 -0500, rude bwoy wrote [in part]:
>i'm sorry - but i respectfully disagree.
>
>free - last i checked - does mean free.
>ie: u don't pay for it.
If you look in any decent dictionary, you will find many meanings for
"free", not all of which involve money. Familiar non-monetary usages are
"free speech", "free spirit", "free radical", and "free love".
I'd suggest you read the actual text of the Gnu Public License. It focuses
on the rights of recipients to be able to copy the software without charge,
and to get source code for free or for a nominal fee that covers copying
(e.g., the cost of burning a CD). It doesn't oblige any recipient to give
away the binaries at zero or low cost (and the obligations regarding source
only apply to people who choose to distribute the binaries).
Check, for example, how much GNU itself wants for a set of binaries compiled
for a specific platform ... I forget the exact number, but it's in the US$
thousands. (Or you can download the sources and compile it yourself ... at
no charge, only the cost of your time and connection.)
I think it's the imprecision of the word "free", at least in part, that has
been the impetus for efforts to displace "free" with "Open Source". But in
the end the problem comes from trying to reduce an idea to a single word or
phrase.
Please don't read this as enthusiasm for the relatively high prices Red Hat
is charging these days. I simply have confidence that the low-cost
alternatives -- I do hope you weren't suggesting that "free" means that
Cheapbytes, for example, should give away the CDs it now charges US$2 +
shipping for -- will serve as a control on pricing, at least for people like
you and I, who have the ability to work with unsupported software.
>if i choose to edit the binaries on windows
>i can do so without penalty - won't get any
>support but i can do it. still it's not free.
Have you actually read the license agreement that comes with any version of
Windows? I have, and my reading is that editing the binaries is a gray area
that might constitute violation of the terms of the license. It's unlikely
that Microsoft would bother to enforce any restrictions against an
individual, but I can easily imagine it trying to stop someone from
modifying the copies of Windows that it buys for redistribution. (Of course,
whether such a restriction is enforcable is, to my knowledge, yet to be
determined; there is very little case law on software licenses. This
observation applies to the GPL as well.)
------------------------------------"Never tell me the odds!"---
Ray Olszewski -- Han Solo
Palo Alto, CA [EMAIL PROTECTED]
----------------------------------------------------------------
