🚀 go-pugleaf

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.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices