> it's not often someone's gonna rag about feature glut on open source stuff -
> or is emacs freeware? I consider this a good thing. I did break down and buy

EMACS is free (as in libre) software, but also falls under the Open
Source(OSI) guidelines as well.  RMS would go nuts if he heard it called
Open Source(since we are on fun w/RMS) :)

However, he would go mad that the term freeware and free software are used
interchangably on this list. :)

His exact words on it:

Please don't use the term ``freeware'' as a synonym for ``free software.''
The term ``freeware'' was used often in the 1980s for programs released
only as executables, with source code not available. Today it has no
particular agreed-on definition

> On another vein, and I am gonna really display my ignorance here...I am
> reading thru this thread and it all escapes me. How much does it matter to
> me that something is FreeBSD, GPL license or freeware? Is it just because it
> is more important to Debian users than RedHat users since it doesn't get
> included in the distro?

It's about philosphy of what is important to you.  BTW: Red Hat GPL's
about everything they write and even gives copyright to FSF.  The
difference I believe you are talking about here is that Red Hat will
include non-free and even non-Open Source software with its distribution.
Debian does not. That alone doesnt make one better than the other, its
just a political statement Debian chooses to make to try to get people to
care about thier freedom.

Derek