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: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. 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 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. > > > not price. > > Never mind that the GNU [L]GPL "no charge" does refer to price. Right. When they want to refer to monetary issues, they're very careful to use the word "charge" or "fee", and not simply say "free" (there's one place where it says "free of charge" -- this use of the word is not ambiguous, because "of charge" makes it clear that price is intended). Note also that the GPL specifically says that you CAN charge a fee when distributing free software. The license to use and redistribute the software must be at no additional charge, but you can charge for the service and/or media. -- Barry Margolin, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Arlington, MA *** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me *** *** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group *** _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
