-------- Forwarded Message -------- From: Mathewson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: I don't give up. Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 12:35:18 -0500
Thank you for that explanation - although I will continue to adhere to my belief that some types of purism can be almost self-defeating. I wonder if you could advise me on a semi-related matter: If I produced an application wherein logos of Macintosh, Microsoft Windows and the Linux Penguin were displayed (without any associated text) would I be legally liable in any way? NOW; back to my EFL programs: if Canonical cannot touch them do you know of some organisation that can? I am investing considerable time and effort in these programs (built of 15 years as an EFL professional and 30 years of computer programming) - and they are going begging: seems a pity if they cannot be put to some use outwith my small concern. I appreciate the OpenSource model, and, I also understand the reasoning behind commercial software: my own software is normally initially developed for some commercial roject and then released free elsewhere when its commercial use has run a reasonable course. However, there should be proviso for something midway between OpenSource and Commercial - an awful lot of good stuff could fall into that basket. sincerely, Richmond Mathewson On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 12:11:22 +0200 Jane Weideman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2005-11-24 at 03:41 -0500, Mathewson wrote: > > I also wonder what the difference is between 'FREE' and > > 'LIBRE' except that one is an English word and the > other a > > French one - > > Free = Free of Charge AND Freedom > > Libre (as in Liberty) = Free as in Freedom and is > unambiguous, so Libre > is used to denote the Freedom essence instead of Free, > which could mean > either. > > > I should like to release my EFL programs for Linux FREE > (as > > in 'take them away without paying and do what you will > with > > them') - none of the source code - neither the > commercial > > engine nor my programming, would be available. > > That is not Open Source, and Canonical would not support > that in > principle. > > "Ubuntu Manifesto: that software should be available free > of charge, > that software tools should be usable by people in their > local language > and despite any disabilities, and that people should have > the freedom to > customise and alter their software in whatever way they > see fit." > > regards > JaneW > __________________________________________________ See Mathewson's software at: http://members.maclaunch.com/richmond/default.html _______________________________________ --------------------------------------------------------------- The Think Different Store http://www.thinkdifferentstore.com/ For All Your Mac Gear --------------------------------------------------------------- -- JaneW _____________ Jane Weideman mobile: +27 83 779 7800 Canonical Ltd. -- edubuntu-devel mailing list edubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com http://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/edubuntu-devel
