Someone was quoted as having written:
> Qmail is free as in beer - not free as in freedom.
Feizhou wrote:
> Prove it. If it is not free as in freedom then please tell me that you
> are not running a patched qmail.
That wouldn't prove anything.
It it was "free as in freedom" software, I'd be able to modify it, and
distribute the modified version in its entirety.
If it was "free as in freedom" software, an up-to-date version of it
incorporating useful patches would come with Linux and xBSD distributions.
If it was "free as in freedom" software, the only things I wouldn't be
allowed to do with it would be to strip off copyright notices, or to
restrict the distribution rights of others.
Which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand? Or are you
just deliberately being obtuse and belligerent?
I run qmail, with patches, but I don't call it "free software" because
it isn't. That was Dan Bernstein's choice, and I respect that, even
though I'd personally prefer otherwise.
Eric
|