Good Morning, Eric!
On Tue, Feb 27, 2007 at 10:13:35PM -0800, Eric Smith wrote:
> 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.
Not necessarily - the distributors of this software have the freedom to
chose the software they distribute
> 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.
qmail is "free as in freedom". You are free to run it, modify it, and to
distribute your modifications. DJB's restrictions don't restrict these
essential freedoms.
> Which part of "free as in freedom" don't you understand? Or are you
> just deliberately being obtuse and belligerent?
I suspect that you don't really understand "free as in freedom"; please
go back to the philosophy section of the FSF's web site, and read it
through thorougly - this time, try to abstract the principles behind it -
"free as in freedom" is to be understood, not chanted like a religious
creed.
> 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
--
Alan Mackenzie (Ittersbach, Germany)
|