Re: Open source - Free software

[Barry Margolin]

In article <85ac4kkr0c.fsf@lola.goethe.zz>, David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org> 
wrote:

> richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
> 
> > In article <mailman.7516.1159386876.9609.gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org>,
> > Alfred M. Szmidt <ams@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >>No, freeware simply means a non-free program that can be distributed
> >>at no cost.
> >
> > Where did you get that definition?  I don't think most people's use
> > of the term excludes free programs.
> 
> When there is a charge on them, it usually does.  Few people will call
> Redhat Enterprise Linux "freeware" since you will be hard to put to
> get it outside of an expensive subscription arrangement, in spite of
> it being free software.

I don't think that contradicts him.  Alfred's definition of freeware 
specifically *excludes* free software -- it's distributed at no cost, 
but must be limited in other ways (e.g. source code is not available, or 
the license prohibits modification).  E.g. he would say that GNU Emacs 
is *not* freeware, despite the fact that you can get it at no cost.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***