** On Jun 09, Matthew Vernon scribbled: > grendel@vip.net.pl (Marek Habersack) writes: > > > First of all, for most *users* Netscape is as free as Mozilla - they don't > > pay a quid for neither, so? You wan't to politically educate the users, > > teach them about the nuances of GPL/LGPL/Artistic/BSD and other licenses? If > > so, fine - go ahead, but I'm afraid that software distribution isn't the > > right media for such kind of education. > > There is an element of free beer/software confusion there, but I think I just wanted to point out that there are many types of software licenses that differ in subtle ways. For most people the moot point that some software is free, but cannot be used by commercial entities and some other software is also free, but CAN be used by commercial entities is just as importand as snow in Berlin in 1948. > the overall point is good. Yes, we do want to educate people that free And that is a noble effort, no doubt, and worth every *reasonable* effort. > software is better, but no, making it difficult for them to get > well-maintained, properly packaged .debs of non-free isn't the way to > do it. And more - it can *hurt* the advocacy, just as religious fanatism hurts the religion it tries to promote, support, defend, whatever. marek
Attachment:
pgpffXivydeQf.pgp
Description: PGP signature