On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
>Fedor Zuev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, MJ Ray wrote:
>>
>> > I have not yet got the impression that the
>> >people you name are "free beer zealots". Rather, they seem to be
>> >"freedom zealots" if anything. Do you have any evidence to support
>> >your description?
>> Free beer is about price. When you get cheaper price (for
>> example, less obligations on the side of recipient|user, when we
>> come to software licensing), you get more free beer.
>>
> Free speech is about liberty. Not only about liberty of Free
>> Stuff receipients, but, as well, about liberty of society, liberty
>> of _everyone_ _else_. Free speech is _not_ about price. Moreover,
>> very often free speech costs you a lot, sometimes it costs you more
>> than absence of free speech.
>So we're on the same page.
I do not completely sure, because of your next comment.
"Price" (and "cost") here is not only money, but each and every
obligation of the user|distributor as long as "they don't conflict
with the central freedoms"[*]. And, especially, "rules about how to
package a modified version"[*], is about a price as long as "they
don't effectively block your freedom to release modified
versions"[*].
>> There a lot of people in this list, who cares very much
>> about cost ("Invariant Sections is clearly non-free"),
>You have _got_ to be kidding!? This makes *no* sense.
What makes no sense?
[*] http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html. Of course, this is
for informational purposes only. Nowhere I said, that this document
makes any formal or moral obligation for the Debian Developers. If
any of them believe that FSF is an Evil Empire, I will not argue. I
just e[plain my reason of my words.
