Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell!hoptoad!hsfmsh!dumbcat!marc
From: marc@dumbcat.UUCP (Marco S Hyman)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: What does "free" mean, eh? (Re: Scareware)
Summary: A different analogy
Message-ID: <140@dumbcat.UUCP>
Date: 13 Mar 90 04:31:47 GMT
References: <14010@s.ms.uky.edu> <125816@midas.UUCP> <635@magnus.Hotline.Com> <1142@mtxinu.UUCP> <316@toylnd.UUCP>
Organization: MH Software, Hayward, Ca.
Lines: 32

In article <316@toylnd.UUCP> dca@toylnd.UUCP (David C. Albrecht) writes:

    Let us pose these statements in a slightly different though I would argue
    equivalent fashion.
    
    My bricks are free.          If you use my bricks
    I require anyone who         you must compensate
    uses any of my bricks   <->  me.
    in a building to give
    away the building for
    free.
    
As long as we're playing games... the GNU analogy, at least with emacs and
GCC, is quite different.  I'd put it this way:

	My tools are free.
	You can use my tools
	to make your own		If you use my tools you must
	building.  However,		compensate me.  If you make
	If you make the building  <->	a building out of my tools
	out of my tools you 		we'd better have an agree-
	must then make the		ment in writing.
	building free also.

But it's really irrelevant.  I have strong doubts that this thread will
change anybody's mind about shareware, GNUware, freeware, or any other type
of ware likely to appear in comp.sources.all. 

// marc
-- 
// {ames,decwrl,sun}!pacbell!dumbcat!marc
// pacbell!dumbcat!marc@lll-winken.llnl.gov