31 Oct
2003
31 Oct
'03
9:51 a.m.
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
What makes you think that? "Free as in speech" distribution can be for
money, too, of course. Unless that's prohibited by the original
license, in which case it's is not a free license.
Each and every single "free" I used in this and all my previous mails
should be read as in free speech, and not a single "free" is meant to
mean "costs nothing" (except where stated as such which, if I remember
it correctly, is nowhere, because I normally use other words for this.)
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
If the right
is bound to giving money to the creator it is not a
free good, with free as in speech, because it would violate the
"free distribution of copies" clause.
Ah - but you're using the 'free beer' sense in 'free distribution'.