Re: [firstname.lastname@example.org: Re: FWD: C-Kermit & potato]
Frank da Cruz <email@example.com> writes:
> There's no point arguing about the license -- we have to pay our bills
> here, and selling a few large licenses to companies that can easily afford
> them is how we do it -- but I don't want people to misunderstand the
> license. Again, for those who are assuming what it says without actually
> reading it, it's at:
This doesn't change the fact that Columbia has for a long time chosen
to pretend that Kermit is free software when, in fact, it is not. It
has liberal licensing terms, but it's a shame that Columbia can't
think of a different way to pay its bills than extorting money.
MIT, for example, writes and distributes much more significant
software than Kermit, and does not see the need to extort money out of
people to do it.