On Sun, 2002-06-16 at 21:29, Walter Landry wrote: > Jeff Licquia <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > That's not the problem of the distributor. If they handwrite "you can > > get your own copy from http://foo.com/bar"; on the back of the last page, > > they aren't required to give you network access for free to get the > > source. As you say, it's an indirect cost. > > What about if I said that you can get it by joining a free software > club, whose membership is "only" $50,000 a year. This is just like > telling a kid from Ghana that they can get free software, but they > only have to pony up their annual salary to join the club of internet > users. It would certainly be an indirect cost (They would offer other > fine free software), but I don't think this is what people are > thinking of when discussing free documentation or software.
Of course, they could get access to all that software much more easily by asking their rich friend who has already joined the Official Ghanian Internet Club to download it for them, right? (Probably not. As you are doubtless already aware, Bill Gates has secretly bought Ghana, and is working to pass a law in that country to redefine the meaning of the word "free" in the GPL to mean "only after the payment of suitable royalties by Microsoft". Additionally, he's working on a government takeover of the Official Ghanian Internet Club, so that downloading and redistributing free software could be prosecuted as treason. So, the question is moot anyway; anyone caught in Ghana with a copy of the GNU Emacs Manual would be shot on sight, whether or not the GNU Manifesto had been stripped from its contents, so the DFCL cannot save them.) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
