• To: 'Bob Foster' <bob@o...>, xml-dev@l..., "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@c...>
• Subject: RE: ISO turns evil?
• From: "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@i...>
• Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2003 08:10:23 -0500

Rats.  I had my heart set on getting some of those 
Free software developers.  We have to pay ours a heckuva 
lot of money and it eats into our profits.  Since they are immune 
to problems, we wouldn't need a Human Resources person 
either or extra beer.  We promise not to copy or distribute them.

len


From: Bob Foster [mailto:bob@o...]

From: "K. Ari Krupnikov" <ari@c...>
> Rick Jelliffe <ricko@a...> writes:
>
> > (Remember, non-commercial use is not in question
> > here, so Free software developers are immune to problems here.)
>
> "Free software" and "commercial software" are completely orthogonal
> categories. Most software, Free, open source or proprietary, is
> written with profit in mind. Red Hat sell commercial Free
> software. "Free" refers to what customers are free to do with it, not
> how much they pay. See [1] for an in-depth explanation and examples.
> [1] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/categories.html#commercialSoftware

Double-plus-bad. Despite the efforts of the Ministry of Information, "free"
still retains the meaning "no charge", among several others that have
nothing at all to do with permission to use, copy or distribute.

• Prev by Date: Re: ISO turns evil?
• Next by Date: OCLC turns evil (was ISO turns evil?)
• Previous by thread: RE: ISO turns evil?
• Next by thread: RE: ISO turns evil?
• Index(es):
  • Date
  • Thread