29 Oct
2003
29 Oct
'03
5:39 p.m.
Guy Daniel CLOTILDE wrote:
Daniel James wrote / a écrit:
RMS would disagree.
you may charge for distributions - he founded GNU on the proceeds of
charging for GNU Emacs.
the point is not free as in beer, its free as in freedom.
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 .::.
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.