On Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:52:35 +0200, andrel wrote:


>>> 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.

Ah, I see - thanks for the clarification.  I did misunderstand.

Jim

Post a reply to this message