On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:18:04 +0200, andrel wrote:

> 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.

Because he keeps bringing cost into the discussion about what "free" 
means:

'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".

Jim

Post a reply to this message