On 15-Jul-08 21:03, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:44:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
> 
>> On 15-Jul-08 0:48, Jim Henderson wrote:
>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 17:33:34 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>
>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:51:59 -0400, Warp wrote:
>>>>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>>>>> Words do have more than a single definition, typically. ;-)
>>>>>>   Tell that to the FSF.
>>>>> Well, you're the one saying you don't understand their usage....
>>>>   I didn't say I don't understand it. I said I completely disagree
>>>>   with it.
>>> So you don't think there's any definition of "free" that applies other
>>> than "free of cost"?
>> No, he thinks free of cost is *one* of the legitimate interpretations of
>> free.
> 
> Well, "free" is an overloaded term in English.  As I stated elsewhere in 
> this (or a similar) discussion, "free" is "gratis" but it *also* is 
> "libre".  FSF talks about "Free" in the "Libre" sense, not the "gratis" 
> sense.
> 

I think we all agree on that. Including Warp, so I do not understand why 
people keep on suggesting that he does not know that.

Post a reply to this message