Hallo, Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote: > > If the right is bound to giving money to the creator it is not a > > free good, with free as in speech, because it would violate the > > "free distribution of copies" clause. > > Ah - but you're using the 'free beer' sense in 'free distribution'. What makes you think that? "Free as in speech" distribution can be for money, too, of course. Unless that's prohibited by the original license, in which case it's is not a free license. Each and every single "free" I used in this and all my previous mails should be read as in free speech, and not a single "free" is meant to mean "costs nothing" (except where stated as such which, if I remember it correctly, is nowhere, because I normally use other words for this.) ciao -- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
