--- Richard Stallman  wrote:
>     No, but when you redefine "free" to mean something specific, you

quoted text
> 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