From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII X-Google-Thread: 103376,8d00a8570ede98c7 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Michel DELARCHE Subject: Re: ADA Development. Date: 1999/11/13 Message-ID: <382DB2DD.8FE69BAA@cybercable.fr>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 548201551 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: <80h6lc$n18$1@nnrp1.deja.com> X-Accept-Language: fr Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 X-Complaints-To: usenet@oceanite.cybercable.fr X-Trace: oceanite.cybercable.fr 942518698 6402 212.198.24.136 (13 Nov 1999 18:44:58 GMT) Organization: Cybercable Paris NewsServer Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-Date: 13 Nov 1999 18:44:58 GMT Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Date: 1999-11-13T18:44:58+00:00 List-Id: A couple of weeks ago, I've followed with some curiosity the long thread about "free versus free", and I realise that the terminological debate is not completely finished yet... As I'm not a native speaker of your language, I also realise "from the outside" how frustrating it is to cope with two different (and not always neatly context-determined) meanings of the same "free" word. I would suggest to reformulate things so that the economical meaning be more clearly distinguished from the legal one, e.g. "cheapware" vs. "libware", since: 1�) someone made it clear that "free" meant in fact "low cost" (since the medium, mail or download connection cost still exists) 2�) FSF-compliant distribution is about the freedom/liberty of modification and (re)distribution ? I guess you could object that "cheap" is not ideal, because it may also convey a notion of poor quality, but it has the advantage of being monosyllabic, which is better for a prefix: what about "unexpensiveware" ? :-) tmoran@bix.com a �crit : > > It is 100% clear to anyone that the student meant ... > Things that are 100% clear to me seem often to be taken in ways I > consider bizarre by others, so clearly my "100% clear" detector > is not reliable.