🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 2 Jun 1999 02:38:46 -0400, Matt Swift <swift@alum.mit.edu> posted:
>Patrick TJ McPhee <ptjm@interlog.com> wrote in message
>news:7j282v$4tt$1@news.interlog.com...
>
>> perverse weenies who insist on the term may think. There's some irony
>> there -- if you insist that your work not be distributed for financial
>> gain, it will be labelled `nonfree'.
>
>Ironical, perhaps, but your description is misleading.  Those who insist
>that their work not be distributed for financial gain are in fact hoping to
>make money off of their work.  They demand money from everyone who is
>willing to give it to them.

A thought for how to "reclaim" the term "free" as being somehow related to
liberty:

Why not have a "gratis" directory structure as well as a "free" directory
structure?  

Software that is free of charge but not free for reuse would go in the
"gratis" directory.  This would allow distinguishing between the different
sorts of software in a way that would not appear quite as discriminatory.
It would display more clearly the ambiguity of the word "free."  It would
educate people a bit about Latin :-).

-- 
Those who do not understand Unix are condemned to reinvent it, poorly. 	
-- Henry Spencer          <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>
cbbrowne@hex.net - "What have you contributed to free software today?..."