>>>
>> 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.
> 
> Because he keeps bringing cost into the discussion about what "free" 
> means:
> 
I think you misunderstood him.

> 'To them "free" means "you can sell it for a price". And they don't see
> any contradiction in that.'
> 
> There is only a contradiction if you assume free *only* means "at no 
> cost".

Let me try to explain his logic once more (and for the last time I 
hope). FSF rules require that you have the freedom to sell software at a 
price. There is no way that you can legally sell POV to a third party. 
Hence POV-Ray is not free software *because you can not sell it*, at 
least according to the FSF rules 
(http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/free-sw.html) . The contradiction 
he mentions arises not because he thinks free means only at no cost, but 
because FSF insists that free *implies* that you must be able to sell 
it. He acknowledges that free has more than one meaning and complains 
that the FSF doesn't.

Post a reply to this message