🚀 go-pugleaf

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: free software creates a new kind of [free] monopoly?
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <9107191747.AA23652@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1991Jul21.192240.4756@alphalpha.com>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Keywords: 

In many of the articles along this thread, the distinction between 
``free of cost'' and ``free of encumbrance'' has not been adequately
made when the word ``free'' has been used.

Such a distinction is very important to make in this discussion, because 
there are two radically different things going on:

1. The Free Software Foundation is selling copylefted software for
   a cost very close to the cost of actual distribution.

   (-: It has been pointed out to me that this is not quite the case---
       - ftp distribution costs as much as the network linkage, but no
         charges are made for distribution.
       - tape distribution costs less than the actual taping and mailing,
	 a little ``profit'' is built in.
       But, for purposes of argument, it is approximately so :-)

   Thus, the FSF is selling copylefted software for $0. In other words,
   it is giving it away for ``free''.

2. Software that is ``free of encumbrances'' is being sold by the FSF and
   others. This is accomplished by the GNU [Library] General Public License
   ([GL]GPL) or ``copyleft''.

   In other words, the FSF and others are distributing ``free'' software.

These two items are not mutually required: 

  - There is software that is distributed free of cost that is not
    free of encumbrance.

  - Copylefted software must remain free of encumbrance, but there is
    no wording in the copyleft that says that it must be free of cost.
    Only the subsequent distribution of source code must be free of cost
    (except for ``reasonable'' handling charges).

    [ No one to my knowledge actually sells for a real cost any copylefted
      software, but the important thing is that this is not prohibited!
      Until Cygnus, no one was making any money off of copylefted software 
      in any way, so please reserve judgement on this point at least until 
      someone tries it (or enough time goes by to justify a lack-of argument).
    ]

Now, please use the correct meaning during your discussions! It is easy
enough for me to pick out correct/incorrect uses of this word and to count/
discount the argument on which these uses are based (there have been plenty
both ways in this current thread), but this is not so easy or even doable
for everyone else!

I suggest the words free-of-cost and free-of-encumbrance, but you can use
whatever you wish. Just be precise!!!
-- 
Kurt Baudendistel ---                                           --- GRA
Georgia Tech, School of Electrical Engineering, Atlanta, GA  30332-0250
internet: baud@eedsp.gatech.edu              uucp: gatech!gt-eedsp!baud