Re: Open source - Free software

[Larry Bristol]

David Kastrup wrote:

> You'll find that he does not sell the content itself (though he'll
> pass on a manuscript in the course of the sale), but rights to print
> said contents, made explicit in a contract.

You actually have that exactly right.  He sells them the RIGHT to print and
sell copies of that content (his intellectual property), which he still
owns.  That is the very definition of the copyright concept.  When a
consumer purchases said book, they acquire that content in a physical form. 
They do not, however, also acquire the right to make further copies of the
intellectual property.  And if either the publisher or the author chooses
to give a free copy of that book to someone, a book reviewer for example,
that free copy does not convey the right to make further copies of that
content.

Copyright does not apply to concepts and thoughts.  Copyright applies only
to the *expression* of those concepts and thoughts.  For books, copyrights
apply to the arrangement of the words, and not to the physical volumes that
contain those words.  Similarly, for software, copyrights apply to the
arrangement of zeros and ones, and not to the media upon which they are
recorded.

-- 
Larry Bristol --- The Double Luck
http://www.doubleluck.com

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You can't buy the content since it is not tangible.  

Uh moron. 

Let http://www.eurexchange.com know. 

And go to doctor.

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> What one buys is the book, which is the media prepared by the printer
>
> But that's not what King sells to publishers and not what he was
> selling on the net in The Plant experiment. Intangibles can also be
> sold, retard.

You'll find that he does not sell the content itself (though he'll
pass on a manuscript in the course of the sale), but rights to print
said contents, made explicit in a contract.

Again, there is a difference between media and content.  You can't buy
the content since it is not tangible.  And buying the manuscript is
not tantamount to buying publishing rights (manuscripts are actually
bought and sold as memorabilia, too, impressed with the contents, but
without rights to the contents).

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> What one buys is the book, which is the media prepared by the printer

But that's not what King sells to publishers and not what he was 
selling on the net in The Plant experiment. Intangibles can also be 
sold, retard. 

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:39 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>You are confusing software and media.  The media are sold, and
>> >>access to software is sold.  The software itself is an arrangement
>> >>of information, interior decoration of the computer's memory created
>> >>with electrons straight from the tap.
>> >
>> > Not in any court in the US in which it's been tested so far.
>> 
>> If the US courts were too stupid to distinguish media and content,
>
> You are the one who is stupid beyond believable, not US courts and
> Congress. Software is literary work. Stephen King doesn't sell any
> media, he sells his work.

The last time I looked in a book shop, one did not buy manuscripts,
but books.  The book is the product of a printer, created by a
publisher from King's manuscript, licensed by King.

What one buys is the book, which is the media prepared by the printer
with the content of King.

I mean, this must be easy enough even to grasp for you, right?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:39 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>You are confusing software and media.  The media are sold, and
> >>access to software is sold.  The software itself is an arrangement
> >>of information, interior decoration of the computer's memory created
> >>with electrons straight from the tap.
> >
> > Not in any court in the US in which it's been tested so far.
> 
> If the US courts were too stupid to distinguish media and content,

You are the one who is stupid beyond believable, not US courts and 
Congress. Software is literary work. Stephen King doesn't sell any media, 
he sells his work. BTW, The Plant was very telling experiment...

http://www.anu.edu.au/people/Roger.Clarke/EC/KingEP.html#TofC

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:39 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>You are confusing software and media.  The media are sold, and
>>access to software is sold.  The software itself is an arrangement
>>of information, interior decoration of the computer's memory created
>>with electrons straight from the tap.
>
> Not in any court in the US in which it's been tested so far.

If the US courts were too stupid to distinguish media and content,
they would not have copyright law in the first place.  Copyright _is_
about content.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   At this point it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good
   faith, so if you come up with another silly response I'm not going
   to bother replying.

I will stop the dicsussion for you, you have done nothing but ask
irrelevant questions for quite some time now.  

If the non-free program is distributed for a fee, then it is not
"freeware", since the definition of "freeware" means `without fee".
There is nothing more to argue about.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>   Can you explain the "so" in that sentence?  Why does the fact that
>   it is distributed without fee preclude it from being distributed
>   commercially as well?

>If it is commercially distributed, then it is distributed for a fee,
>no?

Why does the fact that it is distributed without fee preclude it from
also being distributed for a fee?

At this point it's hard to believe that you're arguing in good faith,
so if you come up with another silly response I'm not going to bother
replying.

-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 16:58:39 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>You are confusing software and media.  The media are sold, and access
>to software is sold.  The software itself is an arrangement of
>information, interior decoration of the computer's memory created with
>electrons straight from the tap.

Not in any court in the US in which it's been tested so far.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:34:20 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:51:06 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>
 And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
 say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
 mean "with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
 when using it to modify the name of a product or product type.
>>>
>>>When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
>>>subject to copyright?
>>
>> No, when we're using the term free software or the word freeware.
>
>Software is a medium in which expressions are subject to copyright.

If I choose to release software I've written without copyright, that's
my choice and my right.

>Welcome to the 21st century.

Welcome to reality.

>>>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?

>> Free gas, free milk, free beer?

>Those happen not to be subject to copyright.

Or the flu, but so what?  If I release a program, with no price, but
without source and with restrictions on redistribution, modification,
etc., it's still free.

>> The press, patents and the arts aren't items that get sold -
>> software, gas, milk and beer are.

>Software is not sold. 

Software CAN BE SOLD - if I write it I can sell it.  (And do, all the
time.)

>>Think of the children's learning game, "which of these doesn't
>>belong?"  Software doesn't belong with the press, patents and the
>>arts.

>I am afraid that you need to get out of the stone age at some point of
>time.

I did.  A long time ago.  I didn't get into this business yesterday.
Or this century.  Or last decade.  Or ...  (Stop me when I pass the
day you were born.)

>The very _definition_ of software is that it is, in contrast to
>hardware, intangible.  Unlike gas, milk and beer.

But just like the written word - which can be free (without cost) and
it can be sold.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Alexander Terekhov wrote:
> 
> David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> [... DAK Indus. ...]
> 
> > You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "copy"
> > and "content".
> 
> The content is the same, dak. (In DAK Indus., the content was "Windows

Err, the content was Word, not Windows.

http://www.ibls.com/dl/IP_Paper.pdf

---
DAK filed its chapter 11 case after it began distributing Word, but
before it had paid the last two installments under the License
Agreement. During the next eleven months, DAK distributed at least 7,600
copies of Word without paying anything at all to Microsoft. During this
period, Microsoft (belatedly) sought to force DAK to assume the License
Agreement. DAK succeeded in delaying any decision on assumption or
rejection until the license expired by its own terms, at which time DAK
rejected the license and contended that the unpaid installments were
nothing more than prepetition, unsecured claims. Microsoft, in turn,
sought payment of over $340,000 in administrative expenses based upon
DAK's postpetition use of its software (7,600 units @ $45 per unit). The
Bankruptcy Court denied Microsoft's request in its entirety, and the
Ninth Circuit affirmed. Thus, DAK was not required to make any
administrative payments to Microsoft, even though DAK made significant
use of the software license following the chapter 11 filing.


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=search&case=/data2/circs/9th/9455029.html&friend=nytimes


The agreement provided that DAK would pay a "royalty rate" of $55 per
copy of Word that it distributed. Upon signing the agreement, DAK became
obligated to pay Microsoft a "minimum commitment" of $2,750,000 in five
installments, regardless of how many copies of Word it sold. The payment
schedule 

[snip schedule]

DAK's $2,750,000 minimum commitment paid Microsoft royalties at the $55
per unit price for the distribution of 50,000 copies of Word. DAK could
sell any and all of those copies to consumers at any time during the
term. The agreement provided that if DAK sold more copies than those
paid for by the minimum commitment, DAK would pay Microsoft $55 for each
additional copy sold. However, if DAK sold fewer copies than those paid
for by the minimum commitment, Microsoft would not refund any of the
commitment. Microsoft did not perfect a security interest in any of
DAK's property, which might have protected it against DAK's failure to
pay the entire minimum commitment in the event of bankruptcy.

Sometime between July and December of 1991, the parties amended the
agreement by reducing the royalty rate to $45. As a result of the
amendment, the minimum commitment paid royalties for the sale of more
than 50,000 copies of Word.

The first payment date was December 30, 1991. In accordance with the
payment schedule, DAK paid the first three installments, totaling
$1,354,167. On June 11, 1992, DAK filed a petition for bankruptcy. The
debtor has not paid the final two installments, totaling $1,395,833.

On December 1, 1992, Microsoft moved in the bankruptcy court for an
order compelling the debtor to assume or reject the executory contract
with Microsoft. On January 12, 1993, Microsoft filed a motion for the
payment of an administrative expense, claiming it should be compensated
for the debtor's post-bankruptcy petition "use" of the license
agreement, because the debtor continued to distribute Word.

On February 3, 1993, the bankruptcy court denied Microsoft's
administrative expense claim. The court concluded that the payment
structure of the agreement was more analogous to payments on a sale of
goods than to royalty payments for the continuing use of an intellectual
property. As such, the debt was a prepetition unsecured claim, not a
postpetition administrative expense claim. The court also concluded that
the agreement was an executory contract, and that the debtor had until
May 4, 1993, to assume or reject the agreement.

In April 1993, Microsoft moved for reconsideration of the denial of its
administrative expense claim. The bankruptcy court denied that motion on
June 16, 1993. The debtor rejected the agreement on May 4, 1993. The
parties agree that DAK had sold approximately 13,244 copies of Word
prior to filing for bankruptcy on June 11, 1992. They also agree that
the debtor sold approximately another 7,600 copies between June 11,
1992, and January 21, 1993, a date one week before the bankruptcy court
hearing on Microsoft's administrative expense claim. The record does not
reflect how many copies of Word the debtor sold between January 21,
1993, and May 4, 1993, the date when it formally rejected the agreement
and stopped selling Word. 1 

[ Footnote 1 ] 

In its brief to this court, DAK calculates that at the amended royalty
rate of $45 per copy, it could have sold a total of 30,092 copies before
exceeding the number for which it had paid prior to bankruptcy.
According to this calculation, DAK could have sold 9248 additional
copies 

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without
   >fee, so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially.

   Can you explain the "so" in that sentence?  Why does the fact that
   it is distributed without fee preclude it from being distributed
   commercially as well?

If it is commercially distributed, then it is distributed for a fee,
no?

Cheers.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:

[... DAK Indus. ...]

> You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "copy"
> and "content".

The content is the same, dak. (In DAK Indus., the content was "Windows 
NT".)

unit A: "dak is retard"

unit B: "dak is retard"

I hereby gift you 100 units A and 100 units B so that you can have 200 
tangible copies of that same content. Software is literary work, BTW. 
TRIPS Art 10.1 (implemented in US Code Title 17, EU Council Directive 
91/250/EEC, etc.):

"Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be 
protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971)."

http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/t_agm3_e.htm#1
^

"t" stands for "trade".

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> "Roger Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> >
> >> >>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
> >
> >> > Free gas, free milk, free beer?
> >
> >> Those happen not to be subject to copyright.
> >
> > You and many others in the open source movement
> 
> I am not in the open source movement.

Hey Roger, GNUtian dak is in the "free software" movement, "free as 
in freedom" (and "freedom" as in the GNU Republic).

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#TOCOpen

--
"Open"

Please avoid using the word "open" as a substitute for "free software". 
A different group, whose values are less idealistic than ours, uses 
"open source" as its slogan. If you are referring to them, it is 
proper to use their name, but please don't lump us in with them or 
describe our work by their label---that leads people to think we are 
their supporters.
--

See also

http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html
(Why ``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'')

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Go to doctor and take RMS with you, dak.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > David Kastrup wrote:
>> > [...]
>> >> Software is not sold.
>> >
>> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
>> 
>> You are confusing software and media.  
>
> I'm confusing nothing, stupid dak. Man oh man. *DAK* Indus., retard 
> dak. Can *you* grok the meaning of "software units" and "transferred 
> 20,000 copies in the single tangible copy"?

You seem to have a problem understanding the difference between "copy"
and "content".

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Roger Johansson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> >>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
>
>> > Free gas, free milk, free beer?
>
>> Those happen not to be subject to copyright.
>
> You and many others in the open source movement

I am not in the open source movement.

> look like people who have found out which way the wind blows, and
> now you stand there with small batterydriven fans blowing air in the
> same direction, making a lot of fuzz about how good you are and how
> you make the wind blow in the right direction, to reinforce your own
> egos and singlemindedness.
>
> Open source software is an inevitable consequence of the need to
> develop software in an optimal way, and most users want open source
> software and open standards.

Uh, not at all.  Free software came about as a consequence of the
inability to work freely with software.  Since free software was
recreated from scratch, it started out by necessity technically
inferior to proprietary software.  If quality had been the main
motivator, neither free software nor open software would ever have
come into existence.

> This happened in the hardware sector decades ago, when the computer
> users of the world decided to use the open architecture PC, and it
> will happen in the software sector for the same reasons.

You can't use software before it is written.

> You are just bullies who like to jump on people and as all other
> bullies you want to have a good justification for your activity and
> all your blabbering. Hot air is leaking out from your singleminded
> and overheated brains, that is the simple truth.

Uh, sounds like your brain did just overheat a bit...

> Learn to use your heads to think with instead of hammering in nails
> with your forehead, in a coffin that is already well on the way to
> be buried, proprietary closed source software.

Oh, there is no such coffin.  Eric Raymond already wants to have
proprietary Codecs in his Linux, everybody and his mother shouts for
binary drivers, Linus Torvalds thinks one should do nothing against
DRM and "trusted computing" which wrench, like in the case of
Playstations, the control from the user about what software he is
allowed to create and run.

> Your speeded minds would be put to better use if you help making
>linux more user friendly and easy to use so we can liberate ourselves
>from the depence on microsoft and other proprietary software
>producers faster.

GNU/Linux did not just magically pop up out of nowhere.  GNU was
created and still is maintained by the people who care for the
availability of free software, those people you rave against.  The
people who would rather code alternatives than sing the praises of
proprietary drivers for the purported sake of "user friendliness" that
is, like proprietary software always has been, a dead end: software
doomed to bit rot, which you can either expensively replace at some
point of time or, if you are unlucky, stop using altogether.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> Software is not sold.
> >
> > http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm
> 
> You are confusing software and media.  

I'm confusing nothing, stupid dak. Man oh man. *DAK* Indus., retard 
dak. Can *you* grok the meaning of "software units" and "transferred 
20,000 copies in the single tangible copy"?

I wrote (starting with softman-v-adobe snippet referring to DAK case
followed by stuff from Nimmer about DAK case):

[...] The court found that the agreement was best characterized as a 
lump sum sale of software units to DAK
--   ^

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/text.html#B21

--
Similarly, a software vendor may contractually allow use by a single
user of a copy of "Windows NT" and, in a separate transaction, deliver a
copy of "Windows NT" under a license allowing the licensee to use the
software in a 10,000 site network or allowing it to make 20,000
additional copies for commercial distribution. In the latter case, the
provider, in effect, transferred 20,000 copies in the single tangible
copy.21  

--

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/note.html#N21

--
21. See Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th
Cir. 1995) (concluding that a distribution agreement involving a lump
sum payment and delivery of a master disk is more like a sale of the
right to make the stated number of copies
--

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Software is not sold.  
>
> http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm

You are confusing software and media.  The media are sold, and access
to software is sold.  The software itself is an arrangement of
information, interior decoration of the computer's memory created with
electrons straight from the tap.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Roger Johansson]

David Kastrup wrote:

> >>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?

> > Free gas, free milk, free beer?

> Those happen not to be subject to copyright.

You and many others in the open source movement look like people who
have found out which way the wind blows, and now you stand there with
small batterydriven fans blowing air in the same direction, making a
lot of fuzz about how good you are and how you make the wind blow in
the right direction, to reinforce your own egos and singlemindedness.

Open source software is an inevitable consequence of the need to
develop software in an optimal way, and most users want open source
software and open standards.
This happened in the hardware sector decades ago, when the computer
users of the world decided to use the open architecture PC, and it will
happen in the software sector for the same reasons.

Open source software will take over the world, with or without your
efforts, with or without your pathetic efforts to control the language.

You are just bullies who like to jump on people and as all other
bullies you want to have a good justification for your activity and all
your blabbering. Hot air is leaking out from your singleminded and
overheated brains, that is the simple truth.

Get some good headache pills and learn to relax, stop spreading a lot
of useless and argumentative crap for a development that is going on
anyway.

Learn to use your heads to think with instead of hammering in nails
with your forehead, in a coffin that is already well on the way to be
buried, proprietary closed source software.

Your speeded minds would be put to better use if you help making linux
more user friendly and easy to use so we can liberate ourselves from
the depence on microsoft and other proprietary software producers
faster.


-- 
Roger J.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Software is not sold.  

http://cryptome.org/softman-v-adobe.htm

--
Adobe Sells its Software  

A number of courts have held that the sale of software is the sale of a
good within the meaning of Uniform Commercial Code. Advent Sys. Ltd. v.
Unisys Corp., 925 F.2d 670, 676 (3d Cir. 1991); Step-Saver, 929 F.2d at
99-100; Downriver Internists v. Harris Corp., 929 F.2d 1147, 1150 (6th
Cir. 1991). It is well-settled that in determining whether a transaction
is a sale, a lease, or a license, courts look to the economic realities
of the exchange. Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., 66 F.3d 1091 (9th Cir.
1995); United States v. Wise, 550 F.2d 1180 (9th Cir. 1977). In DAK,
Microsoft and DAK entered into a license agreement granting DAK certain
nonexclusive license rights to Microsoft's computer software. The
agreement provided that DAK would pay a royalty rate per copy of
computer software that it distributed. Subsequently, DAK filed a
petition for bankruptcy, and failed to pay the final two out of a total
of five installments. Microsoft filed a motion for the payment of an
administrative expense, claiming that it should be compensated for DAK's
post-bankruptcy petition use of the license agreement. On appeal, the
Ninth Circuit held that the economic realities of the agreement
indicated that it was a sale, not a license to use. Thus, Microsoft
simply held an unsecured claim and not an administrative expense. The
court found that the agreement was best characterized as a lump sum sale
of software units to DAK
--

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/text.html#B21

--
Similarly, a software vendor may contractually allow use by a single
user of a copy of "Windows NT" and, in a separate transaction, deliver a
copy of "Windows NT" under a license allowing the licensee to use the
software in a 10,000 site network or allowing it to make 20,000
additional copies for commercial distribution. In the latter case, the
provider, in effect, transferred 20,000 copies in the single tangible
copy.21
--

http://www.law.berkeley.edu/journals/btlj/articles/vol13/Nimmer/html/note.html#N21

--
21. See Microsoft Corp. v. DAK Indus., Inc., 66 F.3d 1091, 1095 (9th
Cir. 1995) (concluding that a distribution agreement involving a lump
sum payment and delivery of a master disk is more like a sale of the
right to make the stated number of copies
--

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Software is a medium in which expressions are subject to copyright.

Medium? Medium as in "interstellar medium"?

> Welcome to the 21st century.

LOL. Uh moron.

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:51:06 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>
>>> And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
>>> say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
>>> mean "with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
>>> when using it to modify the name of a product or product type.
>>
>>When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
>>subject to copyright?
>
> No, when we're using the term free software or the word freeware.

Software is a medium in which expressions are subject to copyright.
Welcome to the 21st century.

>>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?
>
> Free gas, free milk, free beer?

Those happen not to be subject to copyright.

> The press, patents and the arts aren't items that get sold -
> software, gas, milk and beer are.

Software is not sold.  CDs with software on them to it are sold,
usually along with the right to run them (unless we are talking
shareware and similar annoyances).

> Think of the children's learning game, "which of these doesn't
>belong?"  Software doesn't belong with the press, patents and the
>arts.

I am afraid that you need to get out of the stone age at some point of
time.

The very _definition_ of software is that it is, in contrast to
hardware, intangible.  Unlike gas, milk and beer.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

begin  In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/28/2006
   at 02:05 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) said:

>What distribution methodology is that?

Well, the trademark may have disappeared with Fluegelman, but google
is still your friend. Basically freeware is software that is available
at no charge subject to various license restrictions, e.g., no
commercial use, no redistribution. The exact restrictions depend on
the program in question.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

begin  In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/28/2006
   at 12:36 PM, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Language is defined by the community.

There's more than one community.

>You're just going to cause confusion or appear to be a kook.

PKB.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

begin  In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on 09/28/2006
   at 08:51 AM, Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>Since most people who use software aren't part of "the industry", and
>understand "free" to mean "without charge", the phrase merely
>technospeak

More like bafflegab.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Fri, 29 Sep 2006 05:51:06 +0200, David Kastrup <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>> And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
>> say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
>> mean "with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
>> when using it to modify the name of a product or product type.
>
>When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
>subject to copyright?

No, when we're using the term free software or the word freeware.

>Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?

Free gas, free milk, free beer?  The press, patents and the arts
aren't items that get sold - software, gas, milk and beer are.

Think of the children's learning game, "which of these doesn't
belong?"  Software doesn't belong with the press, patents and the
arts.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Jay Belanger wrote:
[...]
> Not at all; the word "free" means "unfettered" in many circumstances
> when it could logically mean without charge. I provided some examples.
> Pretending otherwise is obfuscating, not communicating.

You should read the GNU Manifesto (original, without later added 
footnotes):

"GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete 
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give 
it away free to everyone who can use it. ... Once GNU is written, 
everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like 
air."

Based on this claim, Michael Zeleny came up with a descriptive phrase 
"free software" as a proper name (and gave the name "Free Software 
Foundation" to the organization). He was deceptively expelled from the 
Free Software Foundation by the underhanded dealing of Richard Stallman, 
whose allies took exception to his argument that "free" meant just 
what it said in "obtain good system software free, just like air." So
he claimed.

Later came the footnotes:

"GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete 
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give 
it away free to everyone who can use it.(1) ... Once GNU is written, 
everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just like 
air.(2)"

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html#f1

"(1) The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody 
would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But the 
words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as 
saying that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or 
no charge."

http://www.gnu.org/gnu/manifesto.html#f2

"(2) This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between 
the two different meanings of "free". The statement as it stands is 
not false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from 
your friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea."

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Could you please stop your mud throwing campaigns?  It is not
> useful.

Your notions of "mud throwing" and "useful" are similarly
ill-conceived.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without fee,
>so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially.

Can you explain the "so" in that sentence?  Why does the fact that it
is distributed without fee preclude it from being distributed
commercially as well?

-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

Could you please stop your mud throwing campaigns?  It is not useful.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Al Klein wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:15:55 -0400, Barry Margolin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >Open source software is not the same as free software (as I've mentioned
> >elsethread, open source is a subset of free).
> 
> If "free software" is software you're free to modify, 

According to the dotCommunist (see "Das dotCommunist Manifest") and GNU 
Reichsminister für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda Goebbels^WMoglen,
books, music, etc. is also "software" and must be "free as in freedom".

Now, but when it came to the question of freedom to modify or remove 
altogether Stallman's GNU Manifesto from Emacs documentation, the GNU
President invented another "free stuff" license:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl.txt
(GNU Free Documentation License)

-
L. Preserve all the Invariant Sections of the Document,
   unaltered in their text and in their titles.
-

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
> > say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
> > mean "with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
> > when using it to modify the name of a product or product type.
> 
> When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
> subject to copyright?

You're talking crapola, as usual dak.

> 
> Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?

GNU Republic is hilarious brain-free zone: "thinking will not be 
tolerated."

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Stefaan A Eeckels wrote:
> 
> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:13:59 -0400
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> [alt.comp.freeware dropped]

Restored (just to annoy curious Susan and others topicality police 
volunteers).

> 
> > On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:53:19 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > >But unless you talk about a box in a shop, software isn't "any
> > >product in commerce".
> >
> > It's *A* product in commerce.  Whether the method of transport is the
> > postal service, your arm reaching for a box on the shelf or a download
> > is irrelevant to the fact that it's a product in commerce.
> 
> Software is -recognised by the fact that it's covered by copyright-
> a means of expression. Free software is like free speech, and a product

Free speech is a concept of being able to freely express ideas (speak 
freely without censorship, etc.).

http://www.charvolant.org/~doug/gpl/gpl.pdf

--
If free speech is taken to mean the right to express an idea then free 
software has very little to do with free speech. In software terms, free 
speech means the right to write a program or library that performs
certain tasks. Free software does nothing to protect the right to write 
a program about something, although most subscribers to the free software 
ideal would, presumably, support such a right.
--

In Eldred v. Ashcroft (which the FSF board directors Lessig and Moglen 
lost miserably), writing for the majority, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg 
maintained: "First Amendment securely protects the freedom to make--or 
decline to make--one's own speech; it bears less heavily when speakers 
assert the right to make other people's speeches. To the extent such 
assertions raise First Amendment concerns, copyright's built-in free 
speech safeguards are generally adequate to address them."

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Stefaan A Eeckels]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 23:13:59 -0400
Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

[alt.comp.freeware dropped]

> On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:53:19 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >But unless you talk about a box in a shop, software isn't "any
> >product in commerce".
> 
> It's *A* product in commerce.  Whether the method of transport is the
> postal service, your arm reaching for a box on the shelf or a download
> is irrelevant to the fact that it's a product in commerce.

Software is -recognised by the fact that it's covered by copyright-
a means of expression. Free software is like free speech, and a product
that happens to be software is like a newspaper that happens to be
speech. The fact that one can read a newspaper electronically doesn't
change the fact that it's the newspaper that is the product, not the
speech. 

-- 
Stefaan A Eeckels
-- 
"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide
stupidity there ain't nothing can beat teamwork." -- Mark Twain
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 12:36:17 -0400, Barry Margolin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Language is defined by the community.

And, since the *V*A*S*T* majority of the English-speaking community
accept "free " to mean that the product is available at no
cost, that would seem to end the need for further discussion for most
of the world.  Certainly for those of us reading your words in acf.

>If you don't feel you're bound by 
>it, fine, but don't expect to be able to carry on a conversation.  

Only with the majority of the world.

>You're just going to cause confusion or appear to be a kook.

To a very tiny specialized  portion of a very tiny fraction of
humanity.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's
> say by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to
> mean "with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom
> when using it to modify the name of a product or product type.

When we are talking about the sort of medium in which expressions are
subject to copyright?

Free speech, free press, free software, patent free, free arts?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:29:57 -0400, Barry Margolin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>And if I were talking to lay people, I probably wouldn't use uncommon 
>industry jargon.  But this is a technical newsgroup

Check your newsreader - you're posting to one technical group that has
a written definition that contradicts your claims.

>we should be able to talk in technospeak and not feel the need to define 
>our terms every time.

So you'll be using the acf definitions from now on.  Is that what
you're saying?
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Jay Belanger]

Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
...
>>It doesn't support a lot of things.  If you were paying attention, I
>>was merely pointing out that your casual dismissal of that application
>>is wrong.
>
> Sorry, no, my "casual" dismissal of that application being the only
> one worth considering is correct.

Sorry, no, it isn't.  You have been given several examples where the
noun determines which of many possible meaning an adjective should
have. 

>>I'm sorry that you don't like the meaning of the phrase, but to insist
>>that the meaning you decide to give it is the meaning everyone must
>>agree to is controlling, not communication.
>
> Quite the contrary, I said that forcing everyone to accept only one
> definition of the phrase is wrong.

If there's a commonly agreed upon meaning, that's the one that should
be used.  It's called communication.

>>but given the way you use the language
>
> I use it correctly.

As determined by you.

>>  In this case, an
>>argument against the opposing view was merely an argument to point out
>>the opposing view was wrong.
>
> It might have been, had you not misrepresented my view.

No I didn't; your view was simply wrong.

There's no point in discussing this with you, you seem to think that
you, rather than common usage, determine meanings.  This thread is
going nowhere but into my killfile.

Jay
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 11:17:05 -0400, Barry Margolin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Can we please keep on the topic of what the term "free software" refers 
>to

As soon as you define the audience.

To a very limited audience it means one thing - to the rest of the
world it means something entirely different.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:27:45 -0400, Barry Margolin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 09:34:32 -0500, Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> wrote:
>> 
>> >Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> >...
>> >> Free Software may, but free software refers to software that's free
>> >> (by any of the many definitions of the word "free".  (That's how
>> >> English [and most other languages] works.)
>> >
>> >Really?  The meaning of the adjective doesn't depend on the noun it
>> >modifies? 
>> 
>> Not necessarily.  Defining "free" as "without cost" is perfectly
>> legitimate, as long as the particular usage isn't illogical.  Any
>> meaning can be defined into uselessness if illogicality is allowed.
>
>And sometimes both meanings are logical, and then context is used to 
>determine which is most likely intended.

And, in the English-speaking world, "free" is almost always (let's say
by millions to one, at least) used, when used with a product, to mean
"with no charge".  *VERY FEW* people use free as in freedom when using
it to modify the name of a product or product type.

>And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free 
>software" refers to freedom, not price.

1) You're posting to acf as well.

2) Linux and GNU constitute a minuscule part of the English-speaking
world.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 09:15:55 -0400, Barry Margolin
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Open source software is not the same as free software (as I've mentioned 
>elsethread, open source is a subset of free).

If "free software" is software you're free to modify, then it's a
completely inclusive subset.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 08:04:45 -0500, Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:

>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>...
>Really?  The meaning of the adjective doesn't depend on the noun it
>modifies? 
>>
 Not necessarily.
>>
>>>Not necessarily, but it can.
>>
>> Which doesn't support the argument that unfettered is the only way to
>> apply it to software.
>
>It doesn't support a lot of things.  If you were paying attention, I
>was merely pointing out that your casual dismissal of that application
>is wrong.

Sorry, no, my "casual" dismissal of that application being the only
one worth considering is correct.

>Again, I was merely pointing out that your casual dismissal of the
>current meaning of the phrase "free software" is wrong.
>I'm sorry that you don't like the meaning of the phrase, but to insist
>that the meaning you decide to give it is the meaning everyone must
>agree to is controlling, not communication.

Quite the contrary, I said that forcing everyone to accept only one
definition of the phrase is wrong.

>but given the way you use the language

I use it correctly.

>I can't be sure.

I'm sorry.  If English isn't your native language, perhaps we can find
one we both understand.

>  In this case, an
>argument against the opposing view was merely an argument to point out
>the opposing view was wrong.

It might have been, had you not misrepresented my view.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 14:53:19 +0200, Stefaan A Eeckels
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 21:13:43 -0400
>Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> 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 " means
>> without charge.
>
>But unless you talk about a box in a shop, software isn't "any product
>in commerce".

It's *A* product in commerce.  Whether the method of transport is the
postal service, your arm reaching for a box on the shelf or a download
is irrelevant to the fact that it's a product in commerce.
-- 
It's back - http://www.webdingers.com/filelist.html
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Since freeware by definition is software which is distributed
>> gratis, it cannot be commercial.
>
>Wrong: this would only be the case if freeware by definition would
>be software which _has_ to be distributed gratis, not just software
>which happens to be available distributed gratis.
>
>Just because software is distributed gratis does not mean it can't
>subsequently (or in parallel) be distributed commercially.
>
> Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without fee,
> so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially.  Maybe you
> disagree with this, but it does not make it wrong.  You really should
> learn to use better words to explain what you actually mean.

If only the alliance of Alfred and Alexander allege not getting my
meaning and all others do, that's good enough for me.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Al Klein]

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 " 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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Since freeware by definition is software which is distributed
   > gratis, it cannot be commercial.

   Wrong: this would only be the case if freeware by definition would
   be software which _has_ to be distributed gratis, not just software
   which happens to be available distributed gratis.

   Just because software is distributed gratis does not mean it can't
   subsequently (or in parallel) be distributed commercially.

Freeware by definition is software which is distributed without fee,
so it cannot by definition be distributed commercially.  Maybe you
disagree with this, but it does not make it wrong.  You really should
learn to use better words to explain what you actually mean.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>>>All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee
>>>>for the act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free
>>>>software.
>
>>>What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from
>>>charging a fee for the act of distributing it?
>
>>I didn't write about freeware, I wrote about free software.
>
>You claimed that free software can't be freeware.
>
> Sorry, I misunderstood you.
>
>
>
> Since freeware by definition is software which is distributed
> gratis, it cannot be commercial.

Wrong: this would only be the case if freeware by definition would be
software which _has_ to be distributed gratis, not just software which
happens to be available distributed gratis.

Just because software is distributed gratis does not mean it can't
subsequently (or in parallel) be distributed commercially.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >>>All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee
   >>>for the act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free
   >>>software.

   >>What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from
   >>charging a fee for the act of distributing it?

   >I didn't write about freeware, I wrote about free software.

   You claimed that free software can't be freeware.

Sorry, I misunderstood you.



Since freeware by definition is software which is distributed gratis,
it cannot be commercial.  Otherwise, it is not freeware, but
non-freeware (for the lack of a better term).  Does that answer your
question?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>>>All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for
>>>the act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.

>>What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from charging
>>a fee for the act of distributing it?

>I didn't write about freeware, I wrote about free software.

You claimed that free software can't be freeware.

You said (of freeware):

  it does exclude free software, since free software by definition
  is commercial software too.

You claim that free software can't be freeware because free software
is commercial, and you explain your assertion that free software is
commercial on the grounds that you can charge a fee for distributing
it.

Supposing we accept that free software is commercial in that sense,
you argument only works if being commercial software in that sense
means that it can't be freeware.  Do you in fact claim that?  If so,
why?

-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for
   >the act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.

   What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from charging
   a fee for the act of distributing it?

I didn't write about freeware, I wrote about free software.  Free
software is defined as follows:

* The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).

* The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your
  needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for
  this.

* The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
  (freedom 2).

* The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to
  the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3).
  Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

Cheers!


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
Alfred M. Szmidt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the
>act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.

What makes you think that all freeware prohibits you from charging
a fee for the act of distributing it?

-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[John Hasler]

It's sad that so many of these definitions include the erroneous assumption
that software on which the author retains copyright can never be modified
and/or redistributed.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > I don't think I have an agenda.  I think the posters who refuse to
   > accept that a phrase has acquired an idiomatic meaning beyond the
   > literal interpretation of the constituent words are the ones who have an
   > agenda.  I didn't create this term, and after 20 years it's no longer
   > "new".

   To the overwhelming majority of the people in the world who speak
   english it is not even new but totally unknown.

   If you have spent 20 years of your life in a small group which uses
   the word "free" in another way than it is used in the real world
   outside your little group that is your problem, you can not speak
   proper general english. You have to learn to speak normal english
   if you want to speak to people outside your little "special SFS
   english" group.

So to the overwhelming majority "to be free" means that one is
"without price"? That is quite an interesting interpretation, I guess
that those who wished to be free, really wished to be sold gratis, and
not for a price.

The majority of the populance actually understands the difference
between free beer and free speech.  We use it the word in the later
form, there is nothing strange about it.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Roger Johansson]

Barry Margolin wrote:

> > > So there shouldn't be much ambiguity when the context is
> > > understood -- we have distinct terms for these different concepts.
> > > AFAIK, there's no other common term for what is called "free software",

> > Why not call it "open source software", or GPL or LGPL software, or
> > public domain software, etc..?

> Open source software is not the same as free software (as I've mentioned
> elsethread, open source is a subset of free).  And GPL is just one free
> software license, so it's not an appropriate general term.

But you should be aware of the fact that outside the small group of
"free software" advocates the word "free" in the english language has
more than one meaning, and the most common, shared by billions of
people who speak english, is that it means gratis, you don't have to
pay for something that is free.

> I don't think I have an agenda.  I think the posters who refuse to
> accept that a phrase has acquired an idiomatic meaning beyond the
> literal interpretation of the constituent words are the ones who have an
> agenda.  I didn't create this term, and after 20 years it's no longer
> "new".

To the overwhelming majority of the people in the world who speak
english it is not even new but totally unknown.

If you have spent 20 years of your life in a small group which uses the
word "free" in another way than it is used in the real world outside
your little group that is your problem, you can not speak proper
general english. You have to learn to speak normal english if you want
to speak to people outside your little "special SFS english" group.


-- 
Roger J.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> How about you quote a dictionary if you are so sure that you have the
> right meaning of the word?  Starting some kind of trolling and mud
> throwing campagin against a fellow peer is quite disgusting.

If you are wrong, you are wrong.  That is not trolling and mud
throwing.  And being a "fellow peer" does not mean that if you are
wrong, I have to be wrong too and further weaken the community
weakened by you being wrong.

Anyway.

Google search with "define:Freeware"

yields the following.  Let's see how this is split among
A: available at no cost (what most people say here)
B: available at no cost, but always not free software (your stance)
C: available at no cost, and free software
D: available at no cost, use costs (like shareware)

Definitions of Freeware on the Web:

A   * Software that is available free of charge for personal use.
  www.education-world.com/help/glossary.shtml


A   * Software distributed for free on the Web.
  www.c-latitude.com/glossary.asp

B   * Software which is distributed free by the author. Although it is 
available for free, the author retains the copyright, which means that it 
cannot be altered or sold.
  valencia.cc.fl.us/lrcwest/lis2004/glossary.htm

A   * Software on the web that is freely available (but retains a 
copyright).
  www.liv.ac.uk/webteam/glossary/

A   * Software that is available for download and unlimited use without 
charge. Compare to shareware.
  www.vikont.com/clients/glossary.htm

A   * A method of software distribution where a programmer creates a 
program and makes it available for free.
  www.angelfire.com/bc/nursinginformatics/glossary2.html

A or D  * Shareware, or software, that can be downloaded off the internet -- 
for free.
  smartbizconnection.com/advertising_glossary_index.htm

A   * Software allowed to be distributed free by the author, but often with 
certain conditions applying (ie. the software cannot be modified etc).
  www.devel.legend.co.uk/resources/gloss.html

C   * Software application programs that are free to use and distribute. 
Often, these programs are written by home programmers and distributed via the 
Internet at no cost and no future obligation to buy.
  www.pccomputernotes.com/pcterms/glossaryf.htm

A   * Software offered by companies at no charge, hence the name "freeware."
  www.lanw.com/books/xmlfdum2/extras/glossary/a-f.htm

A   * is software that can be obtained and used free of charge.
  www.tecc.com.au/tecc/guide/glossary.asp

A   * software that doesn't cost anything
  www.archivemag.co.uk/gloss/F.html

A   * Software developed by individuals or small companies that costs 
nothing to use. The developer retains the copyright to the product, so freeware 
is not in the public domain. Many Internet utilities are freeware or shareware.
  www.websightsolutions.com/faq_gloss.html

A   * Programs and applications that can be downloaded from the Internet 
and used for free. There is a large assortment of useful freeware on the Net.
  www.rtnda.org/resources/wiredweb/appendixd.html

A or C  * Software available from many locations on the Internet (often via 
FTP) that is totally free.
  www.shiftnetworks.com/glossary.cfm

A   * Software that is available for free, usually over the Internet.
  www.mcmaster.ca/cis/ctl/glossary.htm

A or C  * This is a shortened version of Free Software. Programmers offer their 
work without wanting pay in return.
  www.5starsupport.com/glossary/f.htm

A   * Freeware is programming that is offered at no cost. However, it is 
copyrighted so that you cant incorporate its programming into anything you may 
be developing. The least restrictive "no-cost" programs are open to copy 
programs in the public domain. These include a number of small UNIX programs. 
When reusing public domain software in your own programs, its good to know the 
history of the program so that you can be sure it really is in the public 
domain.
  www.planetech.co.uk/glossary.htm

A   * Software that requires no payment to use, but the author retains the 
copyright.
  www.compulabel.com/index.asp

C   * (software) Free software available for example on the Internet that 
can be freely used and redistributed.
  www2.themanualpage.org/glossary/glo_f.php3

A   * common parlance for software which is made available free of charge 
by its author(s)
  www.ucolick.org/~de/deimos/glossary.html

A   * A software program that is offered for free. Often it is the result 
of someone programming for learning purposes, and can therefore have many 
errors. Many of today's most used programs started out as freeware.
  
www.packardbell.co.uk/specialevents/infocenter/01/internet/i-course/01ic003a/01ic003a.htm

C   * Software that requires

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> Just because it is not in a dictionary does not mean that the word
>> does not have a proper definition.
>
>I did not say "dictionary".  Just any old reference will serve.  If
>the word has a proper definition, you should be able to give a
>_single_ reference from anywhere else but your own imagination.
>
> I have given you one such reference.

"This is how it is" is not a reference.

>> they are defined by the community, and as it happens the
>> definition of freeware has always been `no charge non-free
>> software'.
>
>Then you should be able to find a single other person of "the
>community" that backs your definition.  You alone don't
>constitute a community.
>
> Neither do you, it is quite sad to see such a hostile and rude
> behaviour from a fellow peer.  You have on a continued basis started
> mud slinging capmaigns towards me and others of this community.
> Could you please stop doing so?  It is not useful, nor is it a very
> useful way for you to spend your time.

If you are babbling nonsense, I won't weaken the stance of what you
consider "this community" by joining in your nonsense.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > Just because it is not in a dictionary does not mean that the word
   > does not have a proper definition.

   I did not say "dictionary".  Just any old reference will serve.  If
   the word has a proper definition, you should be able to give a
   _single_ reference from anywhere else but your own imagination.

I have given you one such reference.  Instead, you continue to behave
in a silly manner, could you please stop that?

   > There are several words which are not in the dictionary which are
   > commonly used, and as it happens computer jargon like terms like
   > `freeware' are not defined in dictionaries,

   Oh, but there are jargon files, and a web search will easily dig up
   hundreds of definitions.

Not everything is on the web.

   > they are defined by the community, and as it happens the
   > definition of freeware has always been `no charge non-free
   > software'.

   Then you should be able to find a single other person of "the
   community" that backs your definition.  You alone don't constitute
   a community.

Neither do you, it is quite sad to see such a hostile and rude
behaviour from a fellow peer.  You have on a continued basis started
mud slinging capmaigns towards me and others of this community.  Could
you please stop doing so?  It is not useful, nor is it a very useful
way for you to spend your time.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > And I suggest you look up the definition of free software, if you
   > cannot charge a fee for something, then it is not free software.

   But software does not become commercial just because you _can_
   charge for it.  By that reckoning, all sex would be commercial.

If sex could be copied like software, then you might have a point.  

   > Thus, it must be commercial, since you can always charge a fee if
   > you so choose to.

   When you are done reading the dictionary, an introductory text on
   logic might be useful next.

Again, you instead of providing sound arguments, you resort to silly
name calling.  Could you please stop that?  It is quite disgusting to
see such a behaviour from a fellow peer.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

How about you quote a dictionary if you are so sure that you have the
right meaning of the word?  Starting some kind of trolling and mud
throwing campagin against a fellow peer is quite disgusting.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Again your mastery of English fails you.  "was used often for" has a
> different meaning from "was often used for".  The difference is that
> the term was frequently _applied_ to such software, not that it was
> _restricted_ to such software.

Really?! 

"Retard" was used often for dak. (the term _applied_ to dak)

"Retard" was often used for dak. (the term _restricted_ to dak)

How interesting. Man oh man.

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>> The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
>> distributed as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to
>> remeber this, but that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do
>> some hacking instead, since you obviously have way to much free
>> time on your hands.
>
>So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just
>blowing smoke.  Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Just because it is not in a dictionary does not mean that the word
> does not have a proper definition.

I did not say "dictionary".  Just any old reference will serve.  If
the word has a proper definition, you should be able to give a
_single_ reference from anywhere else but your own imagination.

> There are several words which are not in the dictionary which are
> commonly used, and as it happens computer jargon like terms like
> `freeware' are not defined in dictionaries,

Oh, but there are jargon files, and a web search will easily dig up
hundreds of definitions.

> they are defined by the community, and as it happens the definition
> of freeware has always been `no charge non-free software'.

Then you should be able to find a single other person of "the
community" that backs your definition.  You alone don't constitute a
community.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>>Not all free software is commercial.
>>
>> All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for
>> the act of distributing it.
>
>I recommend you look up the difference between "must" and "can" in
>a dictionary of your choice.
>
> And I suggest you look up the definition of free software, if you
> cannot charge a fee for something, then it is not free software.

But software does not become commercial just because you _can_ charge
for it.  By that reckoning, all sex would be commercial.

> Thus, it must be commercial, since you can always charge a fee if
> you so choose to.

When you are done reading the dictionary, an introductory text on
logic might be useful next.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

John Hasler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>> It is how the term [freeware] has been defined since around the 1980's.
>> And yes, it does exclude free software, since free software by definition
>> is commercial software too.
>
> To the general public freeware is any software one does not have to pay
> for.
>
> Barry Margolin writes:
>> Not all free software is commercial.
>
> All Free Software can be sold.

But there is no requirement to do so.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>> 
>> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> 
>> > The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
>> > distributed as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to
>> > remeber this, but that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do
>> > some hacking instead, since you obviously have way to much free time
>> > on your hands.
>> 
>> So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just blowing
>> smoke.  Thanks for clearing that up.
>
> Hey dak, his source is Mr. GNU President RMS.
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html
>
> --

"Freeware"

Please don't use the term "freeware" as a synonym for "free
software."  The term "freeware" was used often in the 1980s for
programs released only as executables, with source code not
available. Today it has no particular agreed-on definition.

Again your mastery of English fails you.  "was used often for" has a
different meaning from "was often used for".  The difference is that
the term was frequently _applied_ to such software, not that it was
_restricted_ to such software.

And the last sentence clearly says that there does not exist a current
definition, in spite of what Alfred tries to bluster through.

Anyway, you are just playing with Alfred.  Shame on you.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Jim Richardson wrote:

[... GNU GPL ...]

> royalties and licence fees are not what was being discussed. We were
> discussion the price one can sell the software for. There is no

Now is broadband era, hello. One can sell MEDIA with GNU freeware on it 
(market forces would drive the price down close to recorded media's 
marginal cost at some point of course). But why not simply download from
a free catalog/repository like http://directory.fsf.org or some such? 
(Buying only copy for a zillion seats to be used in parallel aside for 
a moment.)

I'm talking about SOFTWARE: intangible property, kapis?

Suppose the GPL is all fine dandy (no misuse, ha ha).

You can't sell GPL'd intangibles because the property status is 
destroyed by the GPL and you can't impose "additional restrictions"
that are used to appropriate and sell public domain under contract
control (see Pro-CD vs. Zeidenberg). 

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > It is how the term [freeware] has been defined since around the
   > 1980's.  And yes, it does exclude free software, since free
   > software by definition is commercial software too.

   To the general public freeware is any software one does not have to
   pay for.

The general public becomes quite suprised that you can actually charge
a fee for free software.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[John Hasler]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
> It is how the term [freeware] has been defined since around the 1980's.
> And yes, it does exclude free software, since free software by definition
> is commercial software too.

To the general public freeware is any software one does not have to pay
for.

Barry Margolin writes:
> Not all free software is commercial.

All Free Software can be sold.
-- 
John Hasler 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dancing Horse Hill
Elmwood, WI USA
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Jim Richardson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 18:39:25 +0200,
 Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Jim Richardson wrote:
> [...]
>> nothing in the [L]GPL prevents you from charging any amount of money you
>> want to ask for the software. the [L]GPL don't care about the $$$ price
>> at all.
>
> You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
> they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions"
> that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.
> 27  2, 3; Ex. 26  2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the
> physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty
> protection). (Ex. 27  1; Ex. 26  1.) If modified works or machine-
> readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-licensed software are distributed,
> they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the
> terms of this License." (Ex. 27  2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26  2; see
> also Ex. 27  3; Ex. 26  4.)" 
>

royalties and licence fees are not what was being discussed. We were
discussion the price one can sell the software for. There is no
restriction. What you can't do, is licence the software differently.
(Hence, no royalties or licence fees) you can sell it, and in fact, the
FSF did sell (and for all I know, still does) copies of Emacs, and other
apps, for a substantial fee.



-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFHA2Hd90bcYOAWPYRAvfjAJ9ZzpLJU89FjTjbUURh9kut7haS/ACgkyA6
6e/KFOBmOPF5vARCUsnovd4=
=VkjB
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
"Thank you for calling the UN. If this is a real emergency, please hang
up and dial AMERICA"
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
> 
> "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
> > distributed as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to
> > remeber this, but that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do
> > some hacking instead, since you obviously have way to much free time
> > on your hands.
> 
> So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just blowing
> smoke.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Hey dak, his source is Mr. GNU President RMS.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html

--
"Freeware"

Please don't use the term "freeware" as a synonym for "free software." 
The term "freeware" was used often in the 1980s for programs released 
only as executables, with source code not available. 
--

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Not all free software is commercial.
   >
   > All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the
   > act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.

   This discussion is tiresome. You've all fallen prey to the
   "commercial" word.

Actually, I have not fallen prey for anything.  I used the word as it
is suppsoed to be used.  It isn't being used to distinguish between
free and non-free software, but to distinguish between charging a fee,
services, etc that are associated with the software.

   Commercial is a very unpratical word to classify some
   software. That's why I prefer to say Free Software or Non-Free
   Software.

I agree that it is a very unpractical term, if you have one better to
refer to commerce, then please tell.  Free software (or non-free
software) is not the same as commerce, so using those two words to
mean commerce or non-commerce is even worse.

Cheers.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   > The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
   > distributed as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to
   > remeber this, but that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do
   > some hacking instead, since you obviously have way to much free
   > time on your hands.

   So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just
   blowing smoke.  Thanks for clearing that up.

Just because it is not in a dictionary does not mean that the word
does not have a proper definition.  There are several words which are
not in the dictionary which are commonly used, and as it happens
computer jargon like terms like `freeware' are not defined in
dictionaries, they are defined by the community, and as it happens the
definition of freeware has always been `no charge non-free software'.

But you knew, that and instead choose to waste both mine and your
time.  Can you please do some hacking instead?


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >Not all free software is commercial.
   >
   > All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for
   > the act of distributing it.

   I recommend you look up the difference between "must" and "can" in
   a dictionary of your choice.

And I suggest you look up the definition of free software, if you
cannot charge a fee for something, then it is not free software.
Thus, it must be commercial, since you can always charge a fee if you
so choose to.

Please, go hack.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>Not all free software is commercial.
>
> All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the
> act of distributing it.

I recommend you look up the difference between "must" and "can" in a
dictionary of your choice.

> Otherwise, it is not free software.

Straw man.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is
> distributed as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to
> remeber this, but that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do
> some hacking instead, since you obviously have way to much free time
> on your hands.

So you don't have a source to back up your claim and are just blowing
smoke.  Thanks for clearing that up.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Jim Richardson wrote:
> [...]
>> nothing in the [L]GPL prevents you from charging any amount of money you
>> want to ask for the software. the [L]GPL don't care about the $$$ price
>> at all.
>
> You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
> they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions"
> that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.
> 27  2, 3; Ex. 26  2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the
> physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty
> protection).

What about "although fees can be collected" did you not understand?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Jim Richardson wrote:
[...]
> nothing in the [L]GPL prevents you from charging any amount of money you
> want to ask for the software. the [L]GPL don't care about the $$$ price
> at all.

You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions"
that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.
27  2, 3; Ex. 26  2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the
physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty
protection). (Ex. 27  1; Ex. 26  1.) If modified works or machine-
readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-licensed software are distributed,
they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License." (Ex. 27  2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26  2; see
also Ex. 27  3; Ex. 26  4.)" 

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Rui Miguel Silva Seabra]

Qui, 2006-09-28 às 18:48 +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt escreveu:
>Not all free software is commercial.
> 
> All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the
> act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.

This discussion is tiresome. You've all fallen prey to the "commercial"
word.

No software is or isn't commercial.

Every software can be used in a commercial form unless the license
doesn't permit it to.

Every Free Software license permits the covered software to be used
commercially, but what makes it "commercial" or not is if it's used
commercially or not.

Debian's GNU bash is not distributed in a commercial form (although it
can be used in such manner)

RHEL's GNU bash is distributed in a commercial form AND non-commercial
form (the source code is on their FTP site, but the binaries only come
through commercial support channels).

Commercial is a very unpratical word to classify some software. That's
why I prefer to say Free Software or Non-Free Software.

Rui


signature.asc
Description: Esta é uma parte de mensagem	assinada digitalmente
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Not all free software is commercial.

All free software must be commercial, anyone can charge a fee for the
act of distributing it.  Otherwise, it is not free software.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

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.
> 
> It is how the term has been defined since around the 1980's.  And yes,
> it does exclude free software, since free software by definition is
> commercial software too.

Not all free software is commercial.  Some is, some isn't.  So does 
freeware exclude *all* free software, or just commercial software 
(whether it's free or not)?

-- 
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 "Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
 wrote:

> begin  In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
> 09/27/2006
>at 02:27 PM, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> 
> >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.
> 
> No, although I'm sure that you'd like that to be true, just as m$
> would like us to believe that windoze is user friendly.
> 
> >You can dislike it all you want, but you 
> >can't legitimately claim that it didn't happen,
> 
> He can't legitimately claim that the attempt didn't happen; he can
> legitimately claim that he isn't and shouldn't be bound by the
> attempt.

Language is defined by the community.  If you don't feel you're bound by 
it, fine, but don't expect to be able to carry on a conversation.  
You're just going to cause confusion or appear to be a kook.

-- 
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz]

begin  In <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, on
09/27/2006
   at 02:27 PM, Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:

>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.

No, although I'm sure that you'd like that to be true, just as m$
would like us to believe that windoze is user friendly.

>You can dislike it all you want, but you 
>can't legitimately claim that it didn't happen,

He can't legitimately claim that the attempt didn't happen; he can
legitimately claim that he isn't and shouldn't be bound by the
attempt.

-- 
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT  

Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action.  I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail.  Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me.  Do not
reply to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Jim Richardson]

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1

On Thu, 28 Sep 2006 15:45:17 +0200,
 Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Barry Margolin wrote:
> [...]
>> And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free
>> software" refers to freedom, 
>
> And "freedom" as in what, Barry?
>
>> not price.
>
> Never mind that the GNU [L]GPL "no charge" does refer to price.
>

nothing in the [L]GPL prevents you from charging any amount of money you
want to ask for the software. the [L]GPL don't care about the $$$ price
at all.  


-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFG/DPd90bcYOAWPYRAt84AJ4iu2P5ClTP6PYmE223Y44B1Y/SUACffj6S
Od2GK2q4jIgVzVI8Qt5U4xE=
=4Vkx
-END PGP SIGNATURE-

-- 
Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock
They may call it 'ant and roach spray' but it sure does a number on
birds if you spray them with it long enough.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

The meaning of freeware has been non-free software that is distributed
as gratis since the '80s.  Maybe you are to young to remeber this, but
that is how it is.  If you don't like it, go do some hacking instead,
since you obviously have way to much free time on your hands.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

>Anyway, I agree with you that Alfred is in an untenable position
>here.
>
> Freeware is software which is non-free that you can distribute at no
> cost.

Says who?

> Free software can thus not be freeware.  There is nothing untenable
> about it.

If you come up with a reputable source for the definition of
"freeware" you pulled out of your hat, that is.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   Anyway, I agree with you that Alfred is in an untenable position
   here.

Freeware is software which is non-free that you can distribute at no
cost.  Free software can thus not be freeware.  There is nothing
untenable about it.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alfred M. Szmidt]

   >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.

It is how the term has been defined since around the 1980's.  And yes,
it does exclude free software, since free software by definition is
commercial software too.

Cheers.


___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Man oh man, how can you be such a retard, dak?

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> But there is no law which would permit you to create copies for the
> purpose of redistribution.
> 
> > No license is needed (apart from rental and lease). The right is
> > statutory default.
> 
> Go ahead and create copies of Microsoft Windows and sell them.
> 
> Good luck, you'll need it.

Consolidated know-how on escaping the GPL under 17 USC 109 can be found in
"Distributing GPL software" thread on debian-legal.

http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00163.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00166.html
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2006/01/msg00174.html

and etc. (read the entire thread). 

I'll quote the last one

---
I think his point is this: Person A can legally make and distribute a lot of
copies to B without putting B under any obligation, as long as B doesn't
make more copies himself.  B, who now has a lot of copies, can dispose of them
as he wishes by first sale, without having to obey the GPL.

The argument "what if it was Windows XP instead of GPL software" doesn't seem
to work here.  The first step would become "Person A can legally make and
distribute a lot of copies of Windows XP to B..."  This statement would be
true for GPL software and false for Windows XP, so the argument wouldn't
extend to Windows XP.  Only licenses that contain the specific quirks of
the GPL would have this loophole.
---

and perhaps also this part from Tim Smith' missive:

---
It seems to me that this makes it fairly easy for GPL'ed binaries in
embedded systems to become separated from their source code:

1. Manufacturer builds embedded device, using GPL'ed code, and includes
a source CD with the device.

2. OEM or system integrator or retailer buys device.  Receives device
and the source CD.

3. OEM or system integrator or retailer sells device.  Does not include
source code.

Is there a GPL violation?  The manufacturer has fully complied with GPL.
The shipped a binary accompanied with the source code.  They have no further
obligation with respect to that copy.

The binary copy in the device that the OEM, etc., owns was made legally.
Section 109 authorizes them to distribute that copy.  They don't need
permission from the copyright holder, and so don't need to follow GPL.

Result: binary copy of GPL'ed software, distributed without source, and with
no one obligated to provide source to the user's who recieve that binary. 
--

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
> > 
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > 
> > > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > > And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free
> > > > software" refers to freedom,
> > >
> > > And "freedom" as in what, Barry?
> > 
> > Liberty, rights, etc.  From the preamble of the GPL:
> 
> Do you consider paying taxes being a threat to your liberty, Barry?

I'm not sure what this has to do with this discussion.

Can we please keep on the topic of what the term "free software" refers 
to, and not go off on a politics of it?  The intent is independent of 
whether you think it's a good idea or RMS is a commie wack-job.

-- 
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> Barry Margolin wrote:
>> 
>> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>>  Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> 
>> > Barry Margolin wrote:
>> > [...]
>> > > And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes
>> > > that "free software" refers to freedom,
>> >
>> > And "freedom" as in what, Barry?
>> 
>> Liberty, rights, etc.  From the preamble of the GPL:
>
> Do you consider paying taxes being a threat to your liberty, Barry?
>
>> 
>>   When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
>> price. 
>
> That's just GPL-moronizing blah-blah. Refer to whatever you want. The
> terms matter, not preamble blah-blah.
>  
>>Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that
>> you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and
>> charge for this service if you wish),
>
> That's "first sale" (as codified in 17 USC 109) which covers copies
> (material objects in which works are fixed) "lawfully made".

But there is no law which would permit you to create copies for the
purpose of redistribution.

> No license is needed (apart from rental and lease). The right is
> statutory default.

Go ahead and create copies of Microsoft Windows and sell them.

Good luck, you'll need it.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 AlanS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> >How about this: Free software is a subset of open source software, so 
> >all free software is open source.
> 
> No, not all open source is free.

I never said it was, I said the exact opposite.

Free : open source :: dog : mammal

-- 
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Richard Tobin) writes:

> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup  <[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.
>
> So some free software is - in that view - not freeware.  But I was
> denying Alfred's assertion that freeware is necessarily non-free.

While "freeware" is rarely employed as a label for software licensed
under the GPL, even if made available at no cost, that seems not as
much due to the term being wrong, but due to people usually _are_
aware of the license and some of its implications and want to bring
this across.  "freeware" is, however, not uncommonly used as a label
for software collections in the public domain, and those certainly
meet the definitions of free software.

Note that "shareware" is _not_ usually called "freeware" even though
it can be distributed at no cost.  There seems to be some agreement
that "freeware" at least includes the freedom to run a program.

Anyway, I agree with you that Alfred is in an untenable position here.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Barry Margolin wrote:
> 
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
>  Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 
> > Barry Margolin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes that "free
> > > software" refers to freedom,
> >
> > And "freedom" as in what, Barry?
> 
> Liberty, rights, etc.  From the preamble of the GPL:

Do you consider paying taxes being a threat to your liberty, Barry?

> 
>   When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
> price. 

That's just GPL-moronizing blah-blah. Refer to whatever you want. The
terms matter, not preamble blah-blah.
 
>Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
> have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
> this service if you wish), 

That's "first sale" (as codified in 17 USC 109) which covers copies 
(material objects in which works are fixed) "lawfully made". No license 
is needed (apart from rental and lease). The right is statutory default.


>that you receive source code or can get it
> if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
> in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

Imagine that I have no problems whatsoever with you doing these 
things... just pay for the privileges reserved to copyright owners 
(and I mean straightforward charging for grant of rights, not Red Hat 
like hacks with mandatory service fees for all "installed systems"). 
But that would be neither "GPL compatible" nor "free software", right? 

Why?

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
 Jay Belanger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Barry Margolin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> 
> > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
> >  "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >> "Free Software" is not "Open Source", since Open Source also means
> >> non-free software.
> >
> > By that logic, dogs aren't mammals, because mammals also include cats.
> 
> Heh.  I suppose it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.
> Sometimes it means "equals", sometimes it means "subset of".

True.  And sometimes it means "has the quality of", as in "Apples are 
round".

Elsethread you'll see statements like "free software is open source, but 
open source software is not necessarily free".  All these I think make 
it clear that it's understood that the two classes are *not* the same, 
and we're discussing how they're different, not *if* they're different.

-- 
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
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Richard Tobin]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, David Kastrup  <[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.

So some free software is - in that view - not freeware.  But I was denying
Alfred's assertion that freeware is necessarily non-free.

-- Richard
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[Alexander Terekhov]

Richard Tobin wrote:
> 
> 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?  

It's probably RMS' famous laser printer driver, Tobin. It started this 
whole GNU thing.

regards,
alexander.
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

[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.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[AlanS]

"v4vijayakumar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>Sorry, I never thought that there is more than one meaning for "open"
>and "free". I meant "not open" by "free", because this is my problem
>area. Proprietary software is also not open but they are not "free". By
>"open", I meant software that we have access to its source code. 

Who's we? It's very common in the developer tools area, for instance,
to give access to the source for paying customers, whereby the
software isn't free but the source is open. Still more confusing is
software for which the source is free for all to see and examine but
(legal) usage requires licensing and/or payment. On the other hand,
there are sometimes import/export restrictions on open source and free
software so not everybody has (legal) access to the source. It's
hardly a cut and dried business.

As to the original question, I believe in commercial software. Fully
open and free software doesn't provide a sustainable model.

___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss

Re: Open source - Free software

[David Kastrup]

Al Klein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Wed, 27 Sep 2006 23:18:02 -0400, Barry Margolin
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>While it may be a shame, they've been using the phrase for about 20 
>>years now.  It's become part of the industry lexicon.  Similarly, we 
>>have the jargon "freeware" that refers to software distributed at no 
>>cost.  So there shouldn't be much ambiguity when the context is 
>>understood
>
> Since most people who use software aren't part of "the industry", and
> understand "free" to mean "without charge",

Whatever happened to the land of the brave and the free?

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
___
gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss