[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?

From: Jeremy Bowen
Subject: RE: [h-e-w] Re: Gnus, anyone?
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 05:15:22 -0500

> From: Jason Rumney [mailto:address@hidden
> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2001 11:59 PM
> lays down four criteria for
> software to be considered free. 

With respect, this sentence should read "...lays down four criteria for
software to be considered free under the FSF definition of the word

If you have a choice between "(1) Free beer with the recipe" and "(2) Free
beer" but you happen to like the taste of beer number 2 better, then
where's the problem ?

Chances are that you don't brew beer for a living or even care about
brewing beer, you're just thirsty. You wouldn't have a clue about how to
change the recipe to improve the flavour of beer No.1 and you don't have
the time or desire to learn. Beer No.2 hits the spot! It's the one for you :-)

There are hundreds/thousands of other definitions of "free" which you may,
or may not, agree with but are still equally as valid as the FSF

PMail *is* free. It's not open source (but simply being open source
doesn't qualify either.) It's just not FSFfree.

The FSF is not the only "one true path".

PS. Could someone please send me the source code for "free speech". I seem
to have mislaid my copy :-)

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]