Message from discussion Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
From: "JD" <dy...@jdyson.com>
References: <3AAF0BE1.6CC23B43@quiotix.com> <A194883FF2EE0CF4.930A4E7A40C84BE2.689566470C0A2861@lp.airnews.net> <3AAFD1F5.6F8FAC66@quiotix.com> <E008726C0A61E77B.FF580179FC9F247D.D89EBA6608DA79E6@lp.airnews.net> <3AAFE83D.1D68731@quiotix.com> <f_Rr6.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3AAFF1D4.DADC7D9A@quiotix.com>
Subject: Re: Richard Stallman what a tosser, and lies about free software
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:46:38 -0500
X-Trace: news1.iquest.net 984613116 22.214.171.124 (Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:38:36 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2001 18:38:36 EST
"Jeffrey Siegal" <j...@quiotix.com> wrote in message news:3AAFF1D4.DADC7D9A@quiotix.com...
> JD wrote:
> > Remember, free software will be (by default) given away freely.
> It is really impossible to have a reaonsable discussion when you insist
> in using words so carelessly and ambiguously. "Free software" has no
> clear meaning unless you accept the one defined by the FSF, or define
> your own. And "given away freely" is also poorly defined.
It is really impossible to have a reasonable discussion when you insist
on using words with differing, inconsistant definitions. The term 'free' as used
in causual speech and regular discourse associated with the GPL doesn't
carry with it the limitations as associated with the definition in the GPL
So, the error is in the 'very' specific, odd, eccentric definition of free as
associated with numerous GPL documentation.
So, with nonsense extension of the language, it indeed makes it difficult
and CONFUSING to communicate. I suggest that you coin a previous nonsense
word so that the term 'free' isn't oddly used by the GPL advocates.