[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
