Frank Barknecht wrote:
> Hallo,
> iriXx hat gesagt: // iriXx wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Guy Daniel CLOTILDE wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Daniel James wrote / a ?crit:
>>>
>>>
>>>>In the case of music, if someone wanted to distribute a CC'd licenced
>>>>piece commercially, paying the artist a fair cut, then all they'd
>>>>have to do is contact the artist in the usual way and work out a
>>>>deal. What's wrong with that?
>>>
>>>
>>>stepping inside... There's nothing wrong, but if it costs something
>>>(again, nothing wrong) then it's not... free. I think that's what Frank
>>>was pointing out.
>>
>>RMS would disagree.
>
>
> No. The "it" in "it is not free" here means the right to distribute
> something (also commercially), and if this costs something, "it" is not
> free in the RMS sense.
have you read RMS's essay on freedom and why freedom also includes the
programmer's need to eat?
m~
--
|\ _,,,---,,_
ZZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ HTTP 503: Too Busy
|,4- ) )-,_. ,\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) fL
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are
subtle and will piss on your computer."
-- Bruce Graham
Musicians say No to RIAA Persecution and Prosecution of Music Lovers!
Sign the petition at http://www.copyleftmedia.org.uk/justsayno/
.::. www.iriXx.org .::. www.copyleftmedia.org.uk .::.
