In a message dated 1/7/2001 11:27:46 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
> > [ The dict command is your friend ]
> >
> > 1. Exempt from subjection to the will of others; not under
> > restraint, control, or compulsion; able to follow one's
> > own impulses, desires, or inclinations; determining one's
> > own course of action; not dependent; at liberty.
> >
> > 2. Not under an arbitrary or despotic government; subject
> > only to fixed laws regularly and fairly administered, and
> > defended by them from encroachments upon natural or
> > acquired rights; enjoying political liberty.
>
> What do you think the average person would interpret "free software" as ?
> Software that's not opressed, or software that has no cost ? Give me a
> break.
>
> > > > We already have a term for software that just costs no money:
> "freeware".
> > > > This is _NOT_ free software. Shareware is not free software. GPLed,
> > > BSDed,
> > > > X11ed, public domain, APSLed (ad infinitum) code is free software,
the
> > > kind
> > > > that is not often written for Windows.
> >
> > I would agree with this statement fully in the case of BSD and X11. The
> > other cases do not fulfill the definition of "free." GPL is not free,
> > although it approaches it. GPL, APSL, etc. are subject to the will of the
> > authors.
> >
> > > You're idioticly redefining the term "free" to be software with source
> code
> > > and restrictions, rather than no source code and no restrictions. You
> can't
> > > define the language. Free doesn't have a damned thing to do with your
> value
> > > judgements on what's useful, what's "no-value", whether or not it
> includes
> > > source, and whether or not it travels under the restrictions of your
> "free"
> > > licence. You're saying that the only "free" software is open-source
> > > software, and that's a pretty damned closed minded point of view. I've
> >
> > I'm afraid you are the victim of a "pretty damned closed minded point of
> > view." "Free" binaries are under the restraint, control, and compulsion
of
> > the author. the user is unable to determine the course of action. If I
> > cannot freely change the function of a program, it is not "free". If I
> > must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not
> > "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free."
>
> Oh, but other "free" (open source) software has no restraints, controls, or
> compulsions right ? Then what's the point of having the licence ?
>
> If I may repeat what you just said again:
>
> > If I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is
not
> > "free." I am being compelled to perform. This is not "free."
> a.. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright
notice,
> this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
>
> b.. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
> notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
> documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
>
> Those sure seem to be compulsions. They are small and simple, but they are
> compulsions. So even BSD licenced software is not truly "free software" by
> your foolish definitions.
>
> X11
>
> and this permission notice appear in all copies of
> the Software and that both the above copyright notice(s) and this
> permission notice appear in supporting documentation
>
> X11 has the same restrictions. Although including the licence in future
> copies is no big thing, it's still a restriction, and by your own words:
"If
> I must perform other actions as a result of my modifications, it is not
> 'free'".
>
> Now lets hear you rephrase your words to try to become less ambigous about
> the definition of "free" and how it interacts with the restrictions of the
> BSD and/or X11 licences. Maybe you can tell us how they are "more free".
> That's always fun, to listen to people rant about levels of "freeness".
>
I dunno who has it, but here's a cool little program called MultiRes...
it's like QuickRes, but it's for Windows 2000, and supports refresh rates and
shit. Oh, and Stox and Feldman need to, like, sit on a tack or something...
multires.exe
