On Sat, Dec 18, 2004 at 09:44:39AM -0600, Kirk Strauser wrote: > On Friday 17 December 2004 10:22 pm, Marc Wilson wrote: > > > The fact that it's shareware has nothing to do with it. > > Yes, it does. That means (by definition) that it's under a non-Free license, Funny, I seem to recall the GPL saying the reverse: When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. And, of course, the entire contents of http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html No doubt you know more than RMS does. > > Or are you one of the less-than-clued who thinks you can't pay for software? > Are you a jackass who paints his car in polka-dots? > > Seriously, where'd that ad-hominem non-sequitur come from? You seem to have a problem with paying for what you get. -- Marc Wilson | If he should ever change his faith, it'll be because msw@cox.net | he no longer thinks he's God.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature