Re: gpl licensing

[Aragorn]

On Wednesday 06 December 2006 18:19, Alexander Terekhov stood up and
addressed the masses in /gnu.misc.discuss/ as follows...:

> Aragorn (registered Guh-NÜ-slash-Linux user #223157) wrote:
> [...]
>> The word "commercial" is thrown in by this person solely for the purpose
>> of bloating his argument.  There is nothing in the GPL that states that
>> software cannot be sold commercially,
> 
> "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.

I'm sure you've got a dictionary there somewhere... ;-)

-- 
With kind regards,

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