On Saturday 18 December 2004 08:52 pm, Marc Wilson wrote: > 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. I have never seen one single piece of shareware that allows you to "use pieces of it in new free programs". None. Not one. I'll stick by me original statement that shareware is not Free software in general, and explicitly not so in the case of xv. > No doubt you know more than RMS does. OK, Marc, I've got to know: what's with your crusade to be pissed at me? The OP wondered why xv wasn't in Debian, and I told him. I don't recall ever making a single value judgement about xv; I just explained that it wasn't Free. If the Debian criteria was "author must live in a green apartment complex", and xv's author lives in a blue condo, and I pointed that out, then I wouldn't be commenting on whether green apartments are better than blue condos. Why do you want to take it personally? > You seem to have a problem with paying for what you get. That is irrational, unsupported, and completely orthogonal to any of the topics being discussed. As such, I will not reply further to such pointless (and inaccurate) musings. Please excuse me while I return to installing (purchased) Win2K on a (purchased) copy of VMWare. -- Kirk Strauser
Attachment:
pgpqGyp96wpPr.pgp
Description: PGP signature