🚀 go-pugleaf

   ----- Transcript of session follows -----
Connected to sage:
>>> RCPT To:<phil@iseng.compnews.co.uk>
<<< 550 User unknown
550 phil@iseng... User unknown

   ----- Unsent message follows -----
Received: from icdoc.UUCP by hyperion.cps.compnews.co.uk; Sat, 8 Feb 92 06:12:52 GMT
Original-Via:  uk.ac.uknet  ; 8 Feb 92 5:40 GMT
Received: from news.cis.ohio-state.edu by eros.uknet.ac.uk via EUnet 
          with SMTP (PP) id <5083-0@eros.uknet.ac.uk>;
          Sat, 8 Feb 1992 05:03:04 +0000
Received: by news.cis.ohio-state.edu (5.61-kk/5.911008) id AA01477;
          Thu, 6 Feb 92 10:38:59 -0500
Received: from USENET by news.cis.ohio-state.edu with netnews 
          for gnu-misc-discuss-mail@cis.ohio-state.edu (gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu);
          contact usenet@news.cis.ohio-state.edu if you have questions.
To: gnu-misc-discuss@cis.ohio-state.edu
Date: 5 Feb 92 21:52:48 GMT
Message-Id: <1992Feb5.215248.11800@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: "Lawrence C. Foard" <entropy@wintermute.wpi.edu>
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@edu.ohio-state.cis
References: <koblq2INNqb2@early-bird.think.com>, <RwJBFB4w164w@mantis.co.uk>t
Subject: Re: On the multiple definitions of "free"
Original-Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-request@cis.ohio-state.edu
Sender: gnu-misc-discuss-post@cps.compnews.co.uk

In article <RwJBFB4w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>> In article <63899@netnews.upenn.edu> yee@mipgsun.mipg.upenn.edu (Conway Yee) 
>> >Thus, it appears as if Richard Stallman originally meant for 
>> >"free" to mean BOTH definitions of "free".  Has the GNU 
>> >definition of "free" been retconned?  Comments anyone?
>> 
>> I think he assumed that once a restriction-free Unix system became
>> available, cost-free availability would naturally result.
>
>But the GNU system is not going to be restriction-free.  It is going to
>be plastered with copyrights and General Public Licenses.

Whine whine whine. 
No one is stopping you from buying a commercial OS, no one is stopping you
from writting a PD OS.

You want to have your cake and eat it to, someone gives you a car for free on
the one condition that you give it away when you no longer need it, is it
reasonable to complain that they are depriving you of income you should
"rightfully" earn by selling the car?

There is a very good reason to put things under the GNU public license, take a
look at the header files in Ultrix, then download the BSD source from uunet.
DEC took something Berkeley gave away for free and then restricted it. I don't
mind giving code away. I do object when people demand that they be allowed to
make money off it by adding a couple of characters, if I intended for the code
to be restricted I would have restricted it and kept the money for myself! 

The gnu philosophy works rather you like it or not, we will soon have 3
competing free OS's, (Linux,GNU-OS,and BSD). People are contributing to these
because they want to do something they can be proud of, money is not the only
reward in life.
-- 
Disclaimer: Opinions are based on logic rather than biblical "fact".   ------
This is your friendly   | First they came for the drug users, I said   \    /
neighborhood signature virus    | nothing, then they came for hackers,  \  /
please add me to your signature! |     I said nothing... STOP W.O.D.     \/