Charlie wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 01, 2000 at 12:33:14PM -0700, Zero Powers wrote:
> > >The issue isn't downloads, its hardcopy, and I'd be very interested in
> > >finding sources of cds for 2-3 dollars. The utility cost of downloading
> > >100M or more, especially if your local phone usage rates are not capped,
> > >is less than going out and buying the CD.
> >
> > So for you, software isn't free unless the supplier puts it onto some
> > physical storage medium and brings it to you for no charge? If that's the
> > case then, for you, there will probably never be STAAFL.
>
> The issue here is linguistic; we'd be better off speaking in French.
>
> In English, we have one word, "free", that can be used in different
> contexts; "you can drink as much free beer as you can" versus "you have
> complete freedom of speech". The first meaning is, "you do not have to
> pay for this". The second is, "nobody may legally stop you from doing
> this." Free software, by the OSD and the FSF, adheres to the second
> definition; whether it also adheres to the first is irrelevant. And the
> fact that free software is software liberty is one that the press tend
> to get confused over -- never mind the business community (who don't
> generally think in terms of civil rights), and the public.
Good point. However considering the piracy rates in most countries, even
copyrighted software from most vendors (with the sole exception being
wares that you need to call the maker to get a key for) is totally
capable of being copied, so its merely a matter of the 11th commandment.
The rate at which software copyrights are enforced begs one as to
whether copy rights, per se, are de facto still recognized as civil
rights in any case, due to the spotty and capricious nature of
enforcement.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:10:10 MDT