rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (12/12/88)
In article <8812091624.AA14077@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:
~Please note that if you have to buy tapes from someone, buying them from
~FSF helps create more GNU software. All the surplus from tape sales
~goes to pay FSF programmers and technical writers.
And if you buy emacs from Unipress, the surplus goes to paying
Unipress programmers and technical writers. What's the point?
--
Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793
rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) (12/12/88)
Rick Farris <ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!serene!rfarris@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu> writes: >In article <8812091624.AA14077@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >~Please note that if you have to buy tapes from someone, buying them from >~FSF helps create more GNU software. All the surplus from tape sales >~goes to pay FSF programmers and technical writers. > >And if you buy emacs from Unipress, the surplus goes to paying >Unipress programmers and technical writers. What's the point? The point is that the Free Software Foundation is a not-for-profit organization, and the software they develop is free*. While one may not agree philosophically with the principle of Software Socialism, the FSF *is* providing a service of great benefit to the community. Can you say the same about any for-profit organization? Would you rather fund more free software or some company president's Jaguar? *We need a better word than free. Most people mistakenly interpret this to mean "without cost" rather than "without restriction". (A sad commentary on society, particularly in a country founded on freedom...) The obvious alternatives: "emancipated" and "sovereign" or "sovran" seem somewhat cumbersome. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "The trouble with our times is that the future is not what it used to be." -- Paul Valery
jlc@wucfua.wustl.edu (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) (12/13/88)
In article <200@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) writes: >In article <8812091624.AA14077@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >~Please note that if you have to buy tapes from someone, buying them from >~FSF helps create more GNU software. All the surplus from tape sales >~goes to pay FSF programmers and technical writers. > >And if you buy emacs from Unipress, the surplus goes to paying >Unipress programmers and technical writers. What's the point? The point is that the FSF has a "higher purpose" than just making a profit. FSF is out to provide a free UN*X-compatible system for everyone --- full source, no proprietary kernal code, etc. They (and I) feel that, if this is successful, it will mean Good Things for all of us in the computer field in the long run. So what's the point? Well, if you want your money to go towards making Unipress a profit (and/or if their emacs is exactly what you want), then send it out! If, on the other hand, you like the goals of the FSF, and their software is useful, then you can help support the creation of free software by buying tapes from them. Your money goes to a good purpose, and you get useful software. Alternatively, you can write something useful yourself and copyleft it --- that's another good way to support the FSF. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- | John L. Coolidge Internet:jlc@wucfua.wustl.edu UUCP:jlc@wucfua.uucp | | "My other account is in Illinois" I just read news here... | | Except material included, all above opinions mine. All e-mail answered | | (even flames, at least once). Copyright (c) 1988 John L. Coolidge. | | Copying allowed if and only if attributed. All other rights reserved. | --------------------------------------------------------------------------
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/13/88)
> Can you say the same about any for-profit organization? Would you > rather fund more free software or some company president's Jaguar? It's not a Jaguar, it's an Acura Legend. :-) (Sorry, I couldn't resist). -Ron
rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (12/13/88)
In article <33379@bbn.COM> dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) writes: > the FSF *is* providing a service of great benefit to the community. > Can you say the same about any for-profit organization? Well, sure. I'd say most for-profit organizations are providing services of great benefit to the community. At least the ones that are making a profit. Otherwise the community wouldn't be supporting them with their dollars. Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating the FSF; I think they're doing a *great* job. I just don't think that there's any difference in paying their programmers, and paying other programmers. The whole idea behind the FSF, as I understand it, is that they are volunteers, working for "the cause", not a paycheck. If we begin funding the programmers, then we've just turned them into another low priced software house that sells source code. I don't even have a problem with that, as long as it's clearly understood that that is what's happening. > Would you rather fund more free software or some company president's > Jaguar? I don't really care, as long as I get a good product at a fair price, with good support. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757
rex@otto.lvsun.com (Rex Jolliff) (12/13/88)
In article <200@serene.UUCP> rfarris@serene.cts.com (Rick Farris) writes: >In article <8812091624.AA14077@wheat-chex.ai.mit.edu> tower@WHEATIES.AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes: >~Please note that if you have to buy tapes from someone, buying them from >~FSF helps create more GNU software. All the surplus from tape sales >~goes to pay FSF programmers and technical writers. > >And if you buy emacs from Unipress, the surplus goes to paying >Unipress programmers and technical writers. What's the point? > >Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 I believe he was refering to buying GNU software from FSF vs. buying GNU software from ISPI (or whoever they are). The tapes cost about the same amount from either source, but when you but them from FSF the surplus goes towards new GNU software and upgrades, whereas the surplus from ISPI's sales goes god knows where (I guess it goes to those hard working operators who mount the blank tapes 8-) 8-). On the same note, you mention that the surplus from Unipress sales goes to programmers and technical writers. This is not completely true. The bigger portion of the surplus probably goes to stockholders, managers, salespersons, advertising, and (of course 8-) customer support, among other things. something tells me that a source licence with restricted distribution rights for Unipress Emace is a tad bit more than $150. 8-) 8-) Rex. -- Rex Jolliff (rex@otto.lvsun.com, {convex, texsun, mirror}!otto!rex) The Sun Newspaper - |Disclaimer: The opinions and comments in Nevada's Largest Daily Morning | this article are my own and in no way Newspaper | reflect the opinions of my employers. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - OS/2 - The UN*X vendors' best friend.
dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) (12/13/88)
In article <33379@bbn.COM> I write: > the FSF *is* providing a service of great benefit to the community. > Can you say the same about any for-profit organization? Rick Farris (rfarris@serene.cts.com) writes: >Well, sure. I'd say most for-profit organizations are providing >services of great benefit to the community. At least the ones that >are making a profit. Otherwise the community wouldn't be supporting >them with their dollars. Yeah, right, like Microsoft has really done computing a great service by selling us MS-DOS. There's no connection between commercial success and benefit to the community. And then there's the question of motive. Is Lotus a collection of Good Samaritans trying to make users more productive or are they a bunch of money grubbing MBAs trying to line their pockets? (I'm not trying to pick on Microsoft or Lotus, they're just handy examples. They may be the nicest folks in the business...) >Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating the FSF; I think they're >doing a *great* job. I just don't think that there's any difference >in paying their programmers, and paying other programmers. Ah, but there's all the difference in the world. You're not just paying programmers when you buy commercial software, you're giving them profits. Where do those profits go? Use your imagination. >The whole idea behind the FSF, as I understand it, is that they are >volunteers, working for "the cause", not a paycheck. Yeah, but full-time volunteers need to eat, too. I believe FSF also uses funds to commission free software. Isn't this how the GNU C Compiler was developed? >If we begin funding the programmers, then we've just turned them into >another low priced software house that sells source code. No, no, no. Volunteers or not, it costs money to produce software. And their product is always available at no cost if you can find someone to make a copy for you or have net access. >I don't even have a problem with that, as long as it's clearly >understood that that is what's happening. > >> Would you rather fund more free software or some company president's >> Jaguar? > >I don't really care, as long as I get a good product at a fair price, >with good support. Well I do. All else being equal, and it rarely is, I'll at least use non-profit status as a tie-breaker. Usually, though, the GNU software is better and much cheaper (especially when source code is considered). As for support, I find the Internet community is usually more knowledgeable and quicker to respond with the correct answer than most customer support "hotlines" staffed by twits that know less about the product that I do. Then there's the issue of updates. GNU Emacs is updated more frequently and more regularly than any commercial software product I know of. Well, I could go on and on, but the majority reading this is probably already aware of the benefits of free software. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "Money is congealed energy." -- Joe Campbell
gsh7w@astsun1.acc.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) (12/13/88)
In article <> jlc@wucfua.UUCP (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) writes:
# If, on the other hand, you like the goals of the FSF, and
#their software is useful, then you can help support the creation of free
#software by buying tapes from them. ^^^^
^^^^^^
If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what
you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating
systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it.
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wOwens-Christopher@cs.yale.edu (Christopher Owens) (12/14/88)
In article <915@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gsh7w@astsun1 (Greg Hennessy) writes: > > If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what > you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating > systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it. > It is free. You don't have to pay money for it. You can copy it for free from anyone who has a copy and who is willing to let you copy it. There are a couple of sites on the net that allow anonymous FTP of the entire GNU distribution. The only thing you have to pay money for is if you want somebody else to make a tape, print a copy of the manual, and mail them to you. ARPA: Owens-Christopher@cs.yale.edu UUCP: {harvard,cmcl2,decvax}!yale!Owens-Christopher BITNET: Owens@yalecs
gsh7w@astsun1.acc.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) (12/14/88)
In article <915@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> (Greg Hennessy) writes:
# It ain't free if I got to pay money for it.
#
Following up my own note! I know I can get it from ftp. I know I can
get it from others. I know it is a great program. I have given it way,
source code and all, to others myself. I just think the NAME of the
FSF is a bit of a misnomer. I think they do great work. If I was
competent enough to help them I would. Now would people stop flaming
me?
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu
UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7wkarl@triceratops.cis.ohio-state.edu (Karl Kleinpaste) (12/14/88)
gsh7w@astsun1.acc.virginia.edu (Greg Hennessy) writes:
If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what
you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating
systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it.
The concept of `freedom' is not limited to economics.mike@sleepy.unm.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (12/14/88)
In article <915@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what >you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating >systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it. You don't "got to" buy it. I see you are on the Internet. Why don't you just FTP it? Or doesn't that count as free? If you sent FSF $150 for a tape, you are buying a TAPE, not the software. The software is free, evidence by 1) the ability to recopy it at will, and 2) its availability through other, cheaper, means of distribution. If I offer copy of a book I'm writing, but I ask you to pay postage, then I'm not selling the book. I'm selling the distribution. The book is free if I let you recopy it at will. Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true HASA - "A" division GIG! \ And it must follow, as the night the day, mike@turing.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man. Numquam Gloria Deo / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!
rogerk@mips.COM (Roger B.A. Klorese) (12/14/88)
In article <915@hudson.acc.virginia.edu> gsh7w@astsun1.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In article <> jlc@wucfua.UUCP (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) writes: > ># If, on the other hand, you like the goals of the FSF, and >#their software is useful, then you can help support the creation of free >#software by buying tapes from them. ^^^^ > ^^^^^^ >If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what >you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating >systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it. They're not the Free *Media* Foundation, you know. If you can get their software from network sources without asking them to buy tapes or spend time as free operators (rather than free programmers), you don't have to pay a cent. If you're not an opportunistic weenie, of course, it's always considered in good taste to give them money anyway... -- Roger B.A. Klorese MIPS Computer Systems, Inc. {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!rogerk 928 E. Arques Ave. rogerk@mips.COM (rogerk%mips.COM@ames.arc.nasa.gov) Sunnyvale, CA 94086 I don't think we're in toto anymore, Kansas. +1 408 991-7802
rfarris@serene.UUCP (Rick Farris) (12/14/88)
In article <33444@bbn.COM> dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) writes: >Rick Farris (rfarris@serene.cts.com) writes: >>Well, sure. I'd say most for-profit organizations are providing >>services of great benefit to the community. At least the ones that >>are making a profit. Otherwise the community wouldn't be supporting >>them with their dollars. > >Yeah, right, like Microsoft has really done computing a great service >by selling us MS-DOS. Of course they have. We Unix bigots know all of the faults of MS-DOS, and prefer to use real operating systems like Unix, but the vast majority of the unwashed masses need only a "control" program to load their applications software. MS-DOS works just fine (and provides a great service) for those folks. > There's no connection between commercial success and benefit to the > community. You must be joking. There are certainly exceptions, but generally speaking, there is a very direct connection between commercial success and benefit to the community. It's called "voting with your dollars." > And then there's the question of motive. Is Lotus a collection of > Good Samaritans trying to make users more productive or are they a > bunch of money grubbing MBAs trying to line their pockets? This is the first time the question of motive has come up. It's your strawman, answer your own questions. Don't try to attribute your favorite crusades to me. >>Don't get me wrong, I'm not denigrating the FSF; I think they're >>doing a *great* job. I just don't think that there's any difference >>in paying their programmers, and paying other programmers. > >Ah, but there's all the difference in the world. You're not just >paying programmers when you buy commercial software, you're giving >them profits. Where do those profits go? Use your imagination. Hey, I'm getting tired of this shit! All I said was that there is no difference in paying the programmers. I'm not here to act as a convenient excuse for you to vent your spleen about motives, profits, etc. > And their product is always available at no cost if you can find > someone to make a copy for you or have net access. This was a common theme in the mail I received, and you're (all) right. That *is* the big difference. >>I don't really care, as long as I get a good product at a fair price, >>with good support. > As for support, I find the Internet community is usually more > knowledgeable and quicker to respond with the correct answer than > most customer support "hotlines" staffed by twits that know less > about the product that I do. There you go again. I specifically said "good support", not "'hotlines' staffed by twits." You guys could make a lot more friends (and converts) if you didn't take every opportunity you can find to abuse those that have even minor philosophical differences with you. In my original post, I only made two observations: 1) I don't see that paying a programmer is any better or worse of an activity based on who he works for. 2) I don't care who gets the money, as long as I get good software, at a reasonable price, with good support. You used those two observations as an excuse to build a strawman so that you could knock it down. Carry on all the crusades you want, just do them on your own, or with someone that is perhaps more opposed to you. Don't use me as your whipping boy. -- Rick Farris RF Engineering POB M Del Mar, CA 92014 voice (619) 259-6793 rfarris@serene.cts.com ...!uunet!serene!rfarris serene.UUCP 259-7757
dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) (12/14/88)
Well, this is starting to get nasty. Odd number of ">"s is Rick Farris, even number is me. >>Yeah, right, like Microsoft has really done computing a great service >>by selling us MS-DOS. > >Of course they have. We Unix bigots know all of the faults of >MS-DOS, and prefer to use real operating systems like Unix, but the >vast majority of the unwashed masses need only a "control" program to >load their applications software. MS-DOS works just fine (and >provides a great service) for those folks. All I can say is that you must not have to work with MS-DOS yourself, either as a user, developer, or integrator. No informed person in one of those categories could possibly consider DOS anything but a royal pain in the ass. Users have to suffer DOS's asinine limitations, including, but not limited to, 8-character monocase filenames with forced extensions, 640k usable RAM with additional confusion about expansion and extension memory, incompatible TSRs, braindead command line interface, total lack of application interface consistency, et cetera. Developers have all the same problems as users, but have to deal also with the idiosyncrasies of the Intel chips, particularly the 64k segment limit. Integrators, those who have to support users on various systems connected over various networks, constantly find that DOS-based systems are the least-common-denominator, and limit the capabilities of the environment as a whole. So why do the masses "support" DOS? The don't know any better. They say "Hey, N million people can't be wrong. DOS must be good." I can hear the bubbles bursting even as I write. User's are becoming aware of environments better than DOS, such as the Macintosh, (perhaps) OS/2, and UNIX. >> There's no connection between commercial success and benefit to the >> community. > >You must be joking. There are certainly exceptions, but generally >speaking, there is a very direct connection between commercial >success and benefit to the community. It's called "voting with your >dollars." The problem with elections is that the voters are rarely well-enough informed to make the right decision. >> And then there's the question of motive. Is Lotus a collection of >> Good Samaritans trying to make users more productive or are they a >> bunch of money grubbing MBAs trying to line their pockets? > >This is the first time the question of motive has come up. It's your >strawman, answer your own questions. Don't try to attribute your >favorite crusades to me. That was a rhetorical question, Rick, and I wasn't trying to attribute it to you. >>Ah, but there's all the difference in the world. You're not just >>paying programmers when you buy commercial software, you're giving >>them profits. Where do those profits go? Use your imagination. > >Hey, I'm getting tired of this shit! All I said was that there is no >difference in paying the programmers. I'm not here to act as a >convenient excuse for you to vent your spleen about motives, profits, >etc. Lighten up! I'm merely disagreeing with you. If you can't stand the heat... >>>I don't really care, as long as I get a good product at a fair price, >>>with good support. > >> As for support, I find the Internet community is usually more >> knowledgeable and quicker to respond with the correct answer than >> most customer support "hotlines" staffed by twits that know less >> about the product that I do. > >There you go again. I specifically said "good support", not >"'hotlines' staffed by twits." I was simply stressing that good support is not the norm. Admittedly, this was tangential at best, but no worse than irrelevant. >You guys could make a lot more friends (and converts) if you didn't >take every opportunity you can find to abuse those that have even >minor philosophical differences with you. What "guys"? What handy compartment have I just been stuffed into? My friends admire me for my honesty and candor, not because I agree with everything they say. I don't try consiously to convert people to my way of thinking, just to present the rationale for my beliefs. If they agree, that's fine. If not, they usually present their argument. Sometimes they end up taking my side; other times I end up on their side; usually, though, neither of us changes sides immediately. But we both come out of it with a better understanding of each other and the issues involved. >In my original post, I only made two observations: > > 1) I don't see that paying a programmer is any better or > worse of an activity based on who he works for. > > 2) I don't care who gets the money, as long as I get good > software, at a reasonable price, with good support. And in my reply I explained why I disagree with you on both points. Why do you have so much trouble accepting that not everyone agrees with you? >You used those two observations as an excuse to build a strawman so >that you could knock it down. > >Carry on all the crusades you want, just do them on your own, or with >someone that is perhaps more opposed to you. Don't use me as your >whipping boy. Really, Mr. Farris, you shouldn't post your personal opinions to the net if you can't handle differing opinions. I'm not picking on you. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong. I'm saying I disagree, and giving my rationale. Let's not lose track of the real question: Given the choice between the FSF and a for-profit supplier of GNU software, who do you buy from? For many, the choice will be determined by price or convenience, and I can't fault them for that. But Len's point, I believe, is that buying the tape from FSF is a clever way to get your company to financially support the development of more free software. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine. "The 80x86 world has no excuse for the mess it has gotten itself into." -- Doug Gwyn
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (12/15/88)
In article <33521@bbn.COM> dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) writes: >Given the choice between the FSF and a for-profit supplier of GNU >software, who do you buy from? Are there any companies or individuals that provide (for profit) services for GNU products beyond alternate distribution media? For example, is there anyone who makes part of his/her living by installing GNU products at client sites, perhaps on a consulting basis? What sort of further support do you offer after the installation? No, we don't need such services here, but I'm curious whether GNU products have reached that sort of status. I've looked through etc/* and can find no mention of anyone other than various places to get GNU stuff via FTP and UUCP.
ron@ron.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (12/15/88)
Could we quash this discussion. There exists other groups for discussion about FSF policies and politics (and how we got into discussing MS/DOS, I don't know). This one is for EMACS, GNU, comercial, and otherwise. I've got seven different EMACS here, two come from the FSF, three are commercial products, and two are free copies from non-FSF sources. None of this discussion is helping me with *ANY* of my EMACS problems. -Ron
jr@bbn.com (John Robinson) (12/15/88)
Getting a tape ought to cost a tape, postage and handling, and hence you can sell the tape again for the same $$ once you have installed the software. Isn't that free? Your CPU doesn't need a "license"; your site can install the software on as many machines as it wants; you can even write different stuff on the tape that you can sell for a "real" profit if that's your goal. Free means the software is free of restrictions. I am not bashing Rick Farris, just attempting to clarify. :-) -- /jr jr@bbn.com or bbn!jr
bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (12/15/88)
In article <29550@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> bob@allosaur.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) writes: |Are there any companies or individuals that provide (for profit) |services for GNU products beyond alternate distribution media? ... |I've looked through etc/* and can find no mention of anyone ... Of course, I missed etc/SERVICE, as several have gently pointed out to me. I thought it was in there somewhere, and thought I looked at all the likely candidates. I'll look more closely next time. Sorry about that!
dsill@RELAY-NSWC.NAVY.MIL (Dave Sill) (12/15/88)
John Robinson writes: >[The "free" in free software means "unrestricted"] Well, John, I'm afraid that's another problem with the term "free" as applied to GNU software. The GNU Emacs General Public License *does* place certain restrictions on what can be done with the code. I'd include a direct quote from the License, but I'd be violating its copyright notice, so instead, I'll paraphrase. The purpose of the License is to place restrictions on GNU Emacs that guarantee everyone will have right to share it. So, it ain't necessarily free of charge, and it ain't free of restrictions, but it's available free of charge and it's redistributable. ========= The opinions expressed above are mine.
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (12/15/88)
In article <915@hudson.acc.virginia.edu>, gsh7w@astsun1 (Greg Hennessy) writes: >In article <> jlc@wucfua.UUCP (Roving UIUC CS Grad Student) writes: ># If, on the other hand, you like the goals of the FSF, and >#their software is useful, then you can help support the creation of free >#software by buying tapes from them. ^^^^ > ^^^^^^ >If it's free, why do I got to buy it. Say what you mean, and mean what >you say. FSF is creating low cost source code for editors, operating >systems and such. It ain't free if I got to pay money for it. The Roving CS Grad Student said exactly what the RCSGS meant. You are mis-interpreting the meaning of the word "Free" in FSF. It's intent is to signify "Free", as in unfettered. The FSF is creating software that is free to be shared; in fact, the FSF is so desirous of ensuring that its software remain Free, that it protects it with a copyleft. You are free to get the Emacs source from some place other than the FSF. If you can find someone who is willing to give it to you without charging you for the tape, you are free to do so. You can ftp or UUCP the sources. The software itself does not cost you anything; the act of distributing said software to you might -- the FSF charges money for creating and mailing a tape containing the Emacs sources to you. The sources themselves are still Free. You can give them away to whomever you wish. If you pay money for something, you didn't get it for free. The thing itself can still remain Free, however, independent of its distribution. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@sc.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb|amd}!intelca!mipos3!nate