On Sunday 03 June 2007 14:46:12 Anthony W. Youngman wrote:
> In message <[🔎] 20070603194630.GE23796@grep.be>, Wouter Verhelst
> <wouter@debian.org> 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 <wjl@icecavern.net> <xmpp:wjl@icecavern.net>
OpenPGP FP: 4135 2A3B 4726 ACC5 9094 0097 F0A9 8A4C 4CD6 E3D2
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.