🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1991Jul23.235217.2745@eedsp.gatech.edu>, baud@eedsp.gatech.edu (Kurt Baudendistel) writes:

> 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!!!

free-of-cost is the wrong term, it should be better
free-of-license-charge for the following reasons:

 1) You must count the distribution costs (as already mentioned).
 2) Human work costs money.
    Yes, it is so! :-)  It costs money to
	-- spent the time fetching the software
	-- compiling and installing the software
	-- looking for updates and installing these
	-- fighting with the (often bad) documentation
	-- sending updates back to the FSF (which sometimes does not
	   want it, our send-in gcc support for a new system was dropped).

The above points shall not imply that I do not support GNU software,
I just do not like the term free-of-cost. We pay students for this
work and this is by no means free, sometimes it's even cheaper to buy
commercial software. (E.g., ever tried g++ on an HP? Then you searched
the debugging support? As a university we pay ca. $200 for Saber C++.)
The usage of GNU software depends on your situation.

--
Joachim

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Joachim Schrod				Email: xitijsch@ddathd21.bitnet
Computer Science Department
Technical University of Darmstadt, Germany