30 Oct
2003
30 Oct
'03
12:04 p.m.
Frank Barknecht wrote:
Hallo,
iriXx hat gesagt: // iriXx wrote:
have you read RMS's essay on freedom and why freedom also includes the
programmer's need to eat?
m~
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are
subtle and will piss on your computer."
-- Bruce Graham
Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers!
Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/
.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.
Guy Daniel CLOTILDE wrote:
No. The "it" in "it is not free" here means the right to distribute
something (also commercially), and if this costs something, "it" is not
free in the RMS sense. Daniel James wrote / a écrit:
RMS would disagree. In the case of music, if someone wanted to
distribute a CC'd licenced
piece commercially, paying the artist a fair cut, then all they'd
have to do is contact the artist in the usual way and work out a
deal. What's wrong with that?
stepping inside... There's nothing wrong, but if it costs something
(again, nothing wrong) then it's not... free. I think that's what Frank
was pointing out.