Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ficc!peter From: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.sources.d Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware) Message-ID: <0062703ggpc2@ficc.uu.net> Date: 11 Mar 90 23:33:11 GMT References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <34812@watmath.waterloo.edu> <10612@hoptoad.uucp> <796.25f66867@ccvax.ucd.ie> Reply-To: peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) Organization: Xenix Support, FICC Lines: 21 In article nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: > I suppose you rail against libraries that require the payment of royalties > also, but I've never seen you do it. You've never seen me rail against libraries that require royalty payments simply because I haven't seen any since long before I even heard of the GNU manifesto. It's a red herring. OK, I didn't plan on getting sucked into another pointless debate on whether the GNU copyleft is a good thing or not. You obviously have the right to put whatever terms you want on the redistribution of your code that you want. But by saying that your software is free because you don't demand money in exchange for it has lead to the following two misapprehensions: (1) The terms freeware and GNUware are equivalent. (2) The only way to keep people from stealing your code is to put it under the GNU Public License. Is it OK for me to point out that these two statements are false without being flamed for it? -- _--_|\ `-_-' Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. . / \ 'U` \_.--._/ v