🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:
>MZ:
>>>When I want a new release of TeX, I have the
>>>option of ftp'ing it from an Internet node, paying the AMS or somebody
>>>else for the distribution medium, or asking someone to make me a copy.
>
>BB:
>>	You can do this for FSF software as well.
>
>I am not contesting that.

Yes you are!

>[...]  In short, GNU is neither free
>in the sense of being distributed at no cost, nor free in the sense of
>being distributed without imposing an obligation of its recipient.  No
>more needs to be said.

It /is/ free in the sense of being distributed at no cost---as you stated
above, like TeX you an ftp it from a number of Internet nodes.  Furthermore,
anybody can redistribute GNU software (in its original form).  Similarly,
the AMS could redistribute TeX (if I understand the terms of TeX's copyright
correctly) and charge a fee which they could use to (help) finance work on
AMSTeX, for example.  The FSF charges a fee if-and-only-if you ask /them/ to
provide you with a copy on physical media.  But since they simultaneously
make all their software available at no cost via computer networks (and since
the GNU archive is mirrored by archives which are accessible via all 
conceivable methods of computer networking this is not even restricted to
the Internet) you simply can't claim that GNU software is not "free in the
sense of being distributed at no cost."

It also /is/ free "in the sense of being distributed without imposing an
obligation of its /recipient/" (emphasis mine).  The obligation imposed
by the GNU public license applies only to those who wish to /redistribute/
GNU software in some form or another.  As a recipient I have *no* obligations
to the FSF until I wish to redistribute GNU or GNU-derived software.  To put
it another way, if you read the GNU public license carefully, YOU DO NOT HAVE
TO ACCEPT THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE TO USE THE SOFTWARE, only to redistribute
it.  I quote from the GNU Public License, version 2:

	Activities other than copying, distribution and modification
	are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
	The act of running the Program is not restricted [...]

Since you're such a stickler for terms (the semantics of "free" apparently
set you off on your tirade), at least get this right... the recipient has /no/
obligations.  Period.

--
Jurgen Botz, jbotz@mtholyoke.edu
Northampton, MA, USA