Re: [tlug] Expensive Microsoft

["Marty Pauley" <marty.pauley@example.com>]

On 02/08/07, Lyle H Saxon <llletters@example.com> wrote:
> On 8/2/07, Stephen J. Turnbull <stephen@example.com> wrote:
> > Your usage of the word "free" is valid according to some definitions.
> > However ...
> >
> > Curt's usage of "free" is entirely consistent with modern economic
> > terminology.  And it is the appropriate usage for this context.
>
> Then "modern economic terminology" is sophistic and divorced from
> reality.  When you pay money for something that you don't want, it's
> not free.

Maybe you should read your dictionary again, or maybe we all should
stop using the work "free" if we are all using different meanings.

When I pay money for a Debian CD set, it *is* Free.  It may not be the
"free" you are talking about, but it is free.  If you use my preferred
definition of "free" then Windows is not free, no matter the cost; and
my Debian system is always free, even when I sell it for $1000.

Windows would not be free in any sense if "you break the law and steal
it", for many reasons.  And of course, you can't actually steal
software.  You can infringe copyright, but that isn't theft.

But anyway, back to the point.  If I buy a PC with Windows, the
Windows component will not cost me extra: that is what normal
unsophisticated people call "free".

And because it costs nothing for me, I have no problem following
Curt's instructions and erasing it.

-- 
Marty