🚀 go-pugleaf

On 03 Oct 1998 17:18:49 +0200, Anders Wegge Jakobsen <wegge@wegge.dk>
wrote:

> On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:19:11 +0100, Jason Clifford
> <jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk> said:
>
>JC> In article <3614FF1F.7582@nospam.nospam>, No Spam
>JC> <nospam@nospam.nospam> writes
>>> To quote from it: "When we speak of free software, we are referring
>>> to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to
>>> make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free
>>> software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you
>>> recieve source code or can get it if you want it, that you can
>>> change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and
>>> that you know you can do these things.
>
>JC> The license specifically states that one may charge for the
>JC> service of copying and distributing the software which is
>JC> different from selling the software!  -- Jason Clifford
>
> It would seem that you have been reading proprietary licenses too
>long. At least it's evident that your m,indset have entered the realm
>of "What's not explicit permitted, is forbidden." Nothing could be
>more wrong in the real world, except for some of the more backwards
>societies. 
>
>-- 
>/Wegge

has anyone ever read a proprietary license?  no one does, and they're
as meaningless as the sticker on a mattress.