Skype is not free

[Andy Jarvis]

That's fine. The desire to "improve" well-written software and take it
in whichever direction actually eludes me. I am just glad to have
excellent products available to me on a no-cost basis without having to
obtain it illegally. I guess I am a bit long-in-the-tooth to understand
this other aspect of "free" software. Since the Skype guess have
released their product in Linux as well as Windoze versions I feel that
they are doing their bit and deserve to be supported. So I am clearly
not on the right wavelength :-)

Anyhow, that doesn't change the fact that, as other contributors have
pointed out, Ubuntu shows good signs of having what it takes to become
Linux for the "average" user (let's omit Windows or anything else from
the description). I am delighted about that and for myself feel that
this is an operating system which may finally allow me to decommision
W2K from my machine (or at least relegate it to a low-use status). I
should point out that I am also a big fan of the Operating System
formerly known as BeOS (I am currently using the PhOS flavour). It's
nice to have a choice! The last time I could truly enjoy an OS which did
not originate from Seattle was with my Amiga 2000!

On Fri, 2004-09-24 at 00:56 +0300, ubuntu-users-request at lists.ubuntu.com
wrote:
> Andy Jarvis wrote:
> 
> In OSS cicles, "free" does not mean "free of charge." It refers to
> your 
> freedom to fold, spike, reproduce and redistribute.
> 
> The early HPIJ abd HPOJ software was free of charge but the licence 
> prohipited its use with any but HP printers. Now, you can use it with 
> any printers.
> 
> PINE fails because you can't distribute binaries changed versions.
> 
> SKYPE fails because on the restrictions on redistribution.