[Fwd: Wikipidia - Goodbye Red Hat and Fedora]

[Ralf Corsepius]

On Tue, 2008-10-14 at 19:43 +1300, Martin Langhoff wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Ralf Corsepius <rc040203 at freenet.de> wrote:
> >> The free
> >> availability of binaries is never a requirement for any of the free and
> >> open source licenses.
> > This is what RedHat propaganda is telling you.
> 
> I've done several papers in Law School specifically on software
> licensing and analysis of GPL and related licenses. Rahul's statement
> is correct -- no licenses require availability of binaries.
>
> Might be awkward or less than helpful, but it's comfortably within the
> rules of the license.
I am not doubting this: It's a different definition of free. It's one
case of the usual word-games with "freedom"-related words.

To me, a product you can not get without having to pay for, doesn't
qualify as free - It's may be free in the sense of "intellectual
property", but this doesn't make it free in the "common man's sense".

Ask your neighbor, if he would pay USD600 for a barrel of "free beer".

Ralf