On Wed, 26 May 2010 07:32:58 -0500
Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us> wrote:
quoted text > That free beer analogy has never made any sense and never will. I
> honestly wonder why people keep repeating it.
>
Yes. One of my pet peeves. Free from **wut ?
But I do think the BSD model best supports the interests of Liberty,
and that's a bond that makes men less to be free of ;-)
Dhu
quoted text > On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:32:56PM +0100, Peter Kay (Syllopsium) wrote:
> >> From: "Julian Acosta" <j.acosta.m@gmail.com>
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I'm from the Postgraduate Departmen of the ITCC University from Mexico,
> >>
> >> Really we need to contact with Richard Stallman, just for give us his
> >> opinion and answer us some questions about free software,
> >> How can I contact him?
> >> What's his real email?
> > You'd be better contacting the FSF rather than Stallman directly - don't you
> > think that's overkill?
> >
> > He also may have conducted just one or two interviews and written a couple
> > of articles - just google.
> >
> > Bear in mind that their favoured GPL 'free' software license is not free.
> > It is
> > effectively free as in beer, but not as in free speech[1]. Their definition
> > includes being forced to give away source code, which whilst I understand
> > the viewpoint (of increasing free code), is by any measure a restriction of
> > your freedom.
> >
> > BSD licenses, on the other hand, do not restrict what you can do,
> > although it's
> > good karma to contribute back when using a large amount of free code from
> > others.
> >
> > [1] The GPL allows products to be sold, but seeing as this must include
> > source code, after one sale it only needs someone with a compiler to
> > distribute
> > it freely (as in beer).
> >
> > Peter
