[
Lists Home |
Date Index |
Thread Index
]
From: "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
> Rick Jelliffe <ricko@allette.com.au> writes:
>
> > (Remember, non-commercial use is not in question
> > here, so Free software developers are immune to problems here.)
>
> "Free software" and "commercial software" are completely orthogonal
> categories. Most software, Free, open source or proprietary, is
> written with profit in mind. Red Hat sell commercial Free
> software. "Free" refers to what customers are free to do with it, not
> how much they pay. See [1] for an in-depth explanation and examples.
> [1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html#commercialSoftware
Double-plus-bad. Despite the efforts of the Ministry of Information, "free"
still retains the meaning "no charge", among several others that have
nothing at all to do with permission to use, copy or distribute.
Bob Foster
|
