Is linux free 4989

I'm playing no such games, in my judgment. There are many such situations with which we all have experience. For example, a glbutt of water is free in a restaurant - they charge you for the meal, not the glbutt of water. If I offer you my old TV "for free", that desn't include postage and packing or other delivery. I don't see any possible confusion.

I am not redefining it - it has a precise meaning: the cost to you of the source is zero; the cost of delivering that zero-cost thing to you, otoh, is not.

That's a fair comment, and I disagree with your judgment of my judgment. I understand your point that the complete package of source plus medium plus delivery to you costs you money, but maintain that (in my judgment) that is not a charge for the source, but a charge for delivering the source to you. And the GPL is careful to distinguish the two too.

It's not been obscured, but clarified. Neither of us have any doubt as to what is or is not being charged for. There are two things, A and B. A is zero cost, and B is "at cost". You get A+B, paying zero for A and the no-profit rate for B. A is the source, B is the cd it comes on and the cost of making it and sending it to you. You claim that that is "charging for A".

No it isn't. It's charging for B.

There is no argument! That you wish to call "paying zero for A and cost for B", where B is the P&P for A, "charging for A" strikes me as vaguely strange but not a crazy construal. It's just not a description I'd use for the situation. I understand your motives and even applaud them, but I see no need to conflate two perfectly clear and separate items (and their costs-charges). Perhaps it's a regional language thing - "for free" does not connote to me that I should expect the seller to also pay for delivery as well as giving ne the item in question for nothing.

Peter