> If it's not free, > then I might as well buy Windows in place of buying this > since it would be able to run all the windoze apps. (doesn't > mean that I'll buy Windows!) >
What a stupid logic. You don't seem to have understood what the idea behind the GPL is all about, have you? > I like Linux because it has a lot of free tools and a lot of > code is being given freely to the community plus I enjoyed a > lot of free and powerfull software in it. It's a nice feeling > that some people care that you can use this and that and > without thinking of making profit out of it. It seems the "free as in beer" thing is what brough you to Linux, not the idea of making information available free. Yes, cost is definetly one factor but it is also about control. If you want things for free (and as you said in your own email your university gives you free access to all M$ products) why not just stick with it full time? After all, for you it's FREE. Or why not just copy the software (despite the license it is under as the license doesn't seem to interrest you in the first place anyways) and be gone with it? > Some people choose not to disclose their own source code on > Linux and that's their own problem. But as far as I'm > concerned, there are some software I would not buy for Linux > because the initial spirit of Linux was to be an OPEN SOURCE > system. This is MY CHOICE. I know this is not yours and you > have different conceptions of Linux! Please respect mine RESPECTFULLY. Define OPEN SOURCE for me please? What this means by MY understanding is that *I* can look into the source, that I know what I am runnig etc. What it does NOT mean is that someone has to give me their work for free. Michael -- redhat-list mailing list unsubscribe mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/redhat-list
