On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote: > In message <20070603194630.GE23796@grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst > <email@example.com> writes > >That's wishful thinking, at best. Common knowledge defines "fee" as > >"something involving the transfer of money". If it isn't, then the GPL > >is also non-free, by the very same rationale: the fact that you are > >required to produce source when so asked if you do distribute binaries > >from source under the GPL means that you are giving up a right ("the > >right not to distribute any source") which you might otherwise have, > >which could be considered to be a fee. > > And what about societies without money? "fee" does NOT equal "money". > Your "common knowledge" is not my understanding ... Okay, now I'm really curious. Exactly which "societies without money" are you talking about? -- Wesley J. Landaker <firstname.lastname@example.org> <xmpp:email@example.com> OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.