🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <F7LVVB14w165w@mantis.co.uk> mathew <mathew@mantis.co.uk> writes:
[...]
>I count at least three definitions of the word "free" in that single
>paragraph.  Either you're trying to pull a fast one or you're genuinely
>confused -- which?

Please get a clue, 'free' means different things in different contexts.
That why I put the word in quotes.  I expect people to think about what
I've said rather than just blasting away.  Some people are perfectly
content with totally proprietary solutions.  Many people like markets like
the PC/DOS world where there is so much competition that they can get what
they want for great prices.  Some people demand totally free sofware that
they can whatever the hell they like with.  Note that the example of 386BSD
is misleading since most of the code is copyrighted by the U.C. Regents
(it's just happens to be very open which is the same thing as 'free' to
many people :-).

[...]
>GNU has a history of locking people (both developers (GPL, Apple boycotts,
>etc.) and users) to a closed universe.

Except that GNU/FSF's 'universe' is *much* larger and they are very up
front and honest about their goals/positions.  Apple has a very long and
checkered history.  I never said that GNU/FSF was necessarily the 'right'
thing/way to do things.  I just find that GNU/FSF have some integrity
whereas Apple has very little (IMO).

>But of course, that's *completely* different, because it's a universe *you*
>like.  Right?

I disagree with some facets of the GNU/FSF way of things.  So what?  That's
my right.  I don't use there stuff in places where I'd like to so I end up
going elsewhere.  Peaceful, respectful disagreement is part of life.

John