From: Tony Williams 

That's one way to look at it. I tend to think from the POV of the author
- anything other than public domain is attaching strings to other
people's use of the software. The conditions might be "pay me"
(commercial) , "give me recognition" (BSD), or "support the
cause" (GPL).

If the author want's to set conditions, fine - but doing so means that the
software isn't free. FWIW I use Linux and we've (at work) given back to the
community in the form of patches and suchlike - I support the FSF's goals
myself and have donated. But I don't like their misuse of the term
"free".

--
Tony

Joe Barr wrote:
> A better question might be is it ok to disagree with that?
>
> The BSD license is a meaningly sham, but proponents claim to be more free
than
> the GPL.  It could be just as easily phrased "I got this stuff
> without restriction but I don't give a flying fuck whether or
> not you get it the same way or not.  I got mine, so bugger off."
>
>
>
> On Sat, 14 Dec 2002 23:08:43 +0000, Tony Williams wrote:
>
>
>>Robert Comer wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>I just wish Stallman would stop pretending that he invented the idea and
>>>somehow has the right to redefine the word "free" to
mean whatever he
>>>chooses it to mean.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The only free software is public domain.
>>>
>>>
>>>I agree about both!
>>
>>Is agreeing allowed here? 
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4