Will L (sent by Nabble.com) wrote: >> Re: GCC mailing list archive search omits results after May 2005 > > I have been following this thread of discussion. I am a little puzzled.
It shows! Your post is based on a misunderstanding of what "free" means in this context. Perhaps things will be clearer if you read the explanation of what the FSF means by "free" at http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and perhaps also the GPL FAQ at: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > Google and Gmail are both free but they are not "free" software according > to the FSF definition. But does it matter? Well, obviously enough it would matter to the FSF, since that is the FSF's entire and sole raison d'etre. > We still use them for work. That's not relevant to the FSF. > Gmane is completely free and non-commercial, but its free-ness is still > somehow questioned. How free is free? If gmane is free, please supply me a set of the source code to the gmane application, so that I can modify it and use it for my own purposes. > Don't get me wrong, I know what > real free is and I appreciate it, but still I want to be practical. The entire rest of this discussion is based on the assumption that the freedom that the FSF is trying to promote is freedom from cost, which is wrong. The FSF is trying to promote software that is free from *restrictions* in how you use and modify it. This is now way off-topic for the gcc list. There are other gnu lists for discussions about the general philosophy and concepts of free software and if you want to know more you should ask on one of them. cheers, DaveK -- Can't think of a witty .sigline today....
