Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think!mintaka!bloom-beacon!eru!luth!sunic!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!ccvax.ucd.ie!b_haughey From: b_haughey@ccvax.ucd.ie (Brian J Haughey) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware and philanthropy) Message-ID: <852.25ff8253@ccvax.ucd.ie> Date: 15 Mar 90 11:53:55 GMT References: <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <306@isgtec.UUCP> Organization: University College Dublin Lines: 26 In article <306@isgtec.UUCP>, robert@isgtec.UUCP (Robert A. Osborne) writes: > I have no problems with the existance of FSF; I don't agree with it, > and hence I don't use it. BUT it really bothers me that people keep > misrepresenting what FSF software is. > > > Only shareware has restrictions on how YOU personally use it. > Only freeware has NO restrictions. > Only FSFware is a snare to get you to donate your work to FSF. > It bothers me, too when people refer to GNU software copyleft disparagingly as a "snare". The simple answer is - you don't like GNU software because the FSF won't let you make money from what was ultimately other people's work. Okay, so you modified it. Big deal - if you made such extensive changes, and feel the need for some profit from that, why use any GNU source code in the first place ? [I'm not referring to Rob here] People misunderstand the purpose of the FSF - it exists so that ordinary users can have the benefit of decent software (often better than commerecial products) at a nominal cost. People like you obviously don't appreciate this principle. Fine. But don't attack the FSF because of it. Cheers, bjh