--- Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org> wrote:

quoted text
>     No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you
> redefine
>     your own language.
> 
> It's normal to develop criteria for what "free" means in specific
> activities.  Consider, for instance, "free elections".  Human rights
> organizations and election monitors have worked out specific criteria
> for what that should mean in practice.

But, when people use the word "free," even within a particular context,
anyone would be able to understand what that person was talking about
within an acceptable level of error.  The problem with your definition
is that this is not so.  Your definition does not stay true to the
spirit of the word (as used in reality).

But, if I'm wrong (which is possible), please tell me how I can
statically link a program that I write to a GPL'd lib and still retain
my freedom to BSD license my code.


best regards,
Reid Nichol

President Bush says:

War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength


      ____________________________________________________________________________________
Be a better friend, newshound, and 
know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.  http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ