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.

Jim

Post a reply to this message