>-----Original Message-----
>From: Christopher Browne
>Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,alt.os.linux,gnu.misc.discuss
>Subject: Re: Price Fixing? Call to Arms !
>
> >>Christopher Browne wrote:
> >>
> >>> >How can you call it free if you demand something in return.
> >>> >
> >>> >Whether users give back or not is up to them. Many millions of >>>
> >Linux users do NOT contribute... They have simply
> >>> >bought into using FREE software.
> >>> >
> >>> >To call them leeches is rediculous!
> >>>
> >>> "Free software" is *not* "free" in the sense of "free beer."
> >>
> >>Let's see. It is released at no cost and everyone is encouraged to >>get
>a copy and run it, again at no cost.
> >
> >Perhaps you forgot that computers aren't available at no cost.
> >
> >It is a severe misinterpretation to think that "free software" is >free
>in the sense of "free beer." I suggest that you reread the GNU >General
>Public license, specifically its second paragraph, that
> >reads as follows:
> >
> >"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not >price.
> Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that >you have the
>freedom to distribute copies of free software (and >charge for this service
>if you wish), that you receive source code >or can get if if you want it,
>that you can change the software or >use pieces of it in new free programs;
>and that you know you can do . >these things."
> >
> >They have thus explicitly disclaimed association with "price." And
> >suggesting that there is no cost is simply untrue.
> >
> >Free software is no less costly to produce than other software, >save for
>the consideration that creators of free software often >work from other
>freed works and thus are not attributed costs for >proprietary licenses.
>That being only one of the many costs >associated with software
>development, it is not obvious that "free" >software is any less expensive
>to produce.
> >
> >>Everyone is invited to contribute but NOWHERE does GPL require one >>to
>do so.
> >>
> >>Take your own comparison with 'free speech'. While we are all >>entitled
>to speak freely there is NO OBLIGATION on any of us to >>take action to
>defend that free speach beyond our own desire to > >>ensure that the right
>to free speech continues when threatened.
> >
> >Fair enough. If you do not care whether or not free speech is
> >preserved, then you are not obligated to do anything to do so.
> >
> >With apologies to the writer of the original; I do not have a copy >of
>the original quote. It is arguably inappropriate to apply the
> >principles to computing; people have most certainly felt obligated >over
>the years to give their lives for minor things like "free > >speech."
> >
> >First they came for CP/M.
> >But I didn't speak up,
> >Because I didn't care about an operating system.
> >
> >Then they came for WordPerfect.
> >But I didn't speak up,
> >Because their word processor was supposed to be so easy.
> >
> >Then they came for Lotus 1-2-3.
> >But I didn't speak up,
> >Because their spreadsheet promised to be compatible.
> >
> >Then they came for Netscape.
> >But I didn't speak up,
> >Because they gave me their web browser for free.
> >
> >Then they came for the heart of our network.
> >But I didn't speak up,
> >Because their servers had such pretty buttons.
> >
> >Then they came for me when I couldn't pay for an upgrade.
> >Bugs remained unfixed, security holes unplugged.
> >By that time there was no other option,
> >And no one was left to hear my voice.
> >
> >-- <url url="mailto:stox@dcdkc.fnal.gov" name="Ken Stox">
> >--
> >
> >cbbrowne@hex.net - <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
Thanks Christopher, for this dialog.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
http://explorer.msn.com
(text/plain)