Re: gpl licensing

[Aragorn]

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 19:04, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:

> Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
> 
>> On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
>> addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:
>> 
>> > "So now they're going to try the hard work of cracking 'Freedom'. Free,
>> > well that means stuff you don't pay for"
>> >
>> >    -- Eben Moglen ("Moglen: How we'll kill the Microsoft Novell deal")
>> 
>> Freedom doesn't mean that it has to be free of charge, although generally
>> Free Software does indeed come free of charge.
>> 
>> Equating "free" to "free of charge" is a colloquialism.  It's not the
>> FSF's fault that people tend to take rumors and misinterpretations for
>> truths.
> 
> The GPL covers only the software; people are free to charge for the
> physical media on which it comes and for assistance in making it work.
> Paper manuals, and the time of knowledgeable people who service and
> support an installation, thus are the most expensive part of using
> Linux.

... Says it all...

> Impeccable logic.

Glad you see it that way too...

> Right, Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157)?

That is correct, Alexander (unregistered Crimosoft Glassware NT 5 user).

-- 
With kind regards,

*Aragorn*
(registered GNU/Linux user #223157)