From:	"Mark McIntyre" <mark AT garthorn DOT demon DOT co DOT uk>
To:	"Eli Zaretskii" <eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il>
Cc:	<djgpp AT delorie DOT com>
Subject:	RE: DJGPP reserves wrong int size
Date:	Sun, 8 Jul 2001 15:53:20 +0100
Message-ID:	<000101c107bd$bae137e0$0100a8c0@ThePC>
MIME-Version:	1.0
X-Priority:	3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority:	Normal
X-Mailer:	Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2232.26
In-Reply-To:	<Pine.SUN.3.91.1010708111433.24414J-100000@is>
Importance:	Normal
X-MimeOLE:	Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4522.1200
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	nobody AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eli Zaretskii [mailto:eliz AT is DOT elta DOT co DOT il]
> 
> On Sat, 7 Jul 2001, Mark McIntyre wrote:
> 
> > >and while
> > >that term isn't meant to imply that you can get such software "for
> > >free", in practice that has always been true (since even if you demand
> > >payment for the software, the first person to buy it is free to offer
> > >it "for free" on his/her FTP dump).  Still, companies like RedHat seem
> > >to be making enough money from Free Software.
> > 
> > its worth noting that even RMS does not actually define too much as
> > "Free Software". GNU certainly don't. You're free to modify the code
> > and may not charge for doing so.
> 
> I'm not sure whether you meant to say that you are forbidden from
> charging money for modifications to GPL'ed code, but if you did, this
> is not true.  It is entirely legal to charge money for maintaining
> GPL'ed code, provided that the results are made available in the
> source code form and under terms compatible with GPL.

Which makes my original point. GPL is not free software... !

- Raw text -