🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1993Jan5.022956.19008@husc3.harvard.edu>, <zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu> (Michael Zeleny) writes:
 
>>So, what you're basically saying is that since you are not free to
>>make it non-free, it is not "free" (as has already been mentioned in
>>this thread, all these "free"s are not referring to cost, but rather
>>to freedom of use).
 
>Nonsense.  What I am saying is that I am not free to use GNU in any way
>I see fit; more importantly, nor am I free of legal obligation implicit
>in, and specific to its use.  Consequently, it is not free.  Is this so
>hard to understand?
 
It is ridiculous to claim that a "freedom" must entail no obligations. Every
liberty that is possessed by the people of the pluralistic nations of the world
is limited to some extent by a corresponding responsibility.  For example, the
First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states that "Congress shall make no
law ... abridging the freedom of speech...." However, it is a well-known
principle that it is illegal to shout "Fire!" in a public place that is not
actually ablaze.  Furthermore, the press in the United States and in many other
societies is allegedly "free."  However, it is limited by libel laws and
intellectual property considerations.
 
In other words, it is possible and indeed necessary for freedom to be
restricted for the common good of the people.  The English word "free" has come
to embody this connotation.  Therefore, the Free Software Foundation is using
this word in _exactly the same way_ as it is customarily used.  If that is not
the usage which Michael Zeleny prefers, then he is not speaking the same
language as the rest of us.
 
-- Fred Gray
-- fgray@cardinal.ncsc.org
-- my personal opinions only