While I fully agree with you, there are several issues here:
- the word "free" has several meanings in English, i.e. "free" as in "no charge" and "free" as in "freedom" (free access, free software, etc.) - the answer given there does not indicate which one of those is meant.
- patents have most likely been granted in countries that recognise them - this does not prevent from the patent being put into public domain. However, the second sentence in question 17 seems to indicate that the license bears a fee, which also contradicts one of the meanings of "free above.
Either way, the Q&A/FAQ is full of marketing mumble.
I'm not trying to insult anyone, it's a mere statement of a fact - the OP hasn't a slightest clue about web of trust, subkeys, key-signing, etc. and he clearly demonstrated it in several comments. In those he spreads misinformation and FUD - and those are signs of a troll. So if I say "you haven't a slightest clue" to such an individual, I'm being polite.
I've noticed it several months ago by going through my server logs - hadn't included 'favicon.ico' in the HTML and yet, the browser - Chrom(e|ium) - tried downloading it every time.
> Along with a warning that the key didn't have others' signatures on it, which ironically re-assured me more because it shouldn't.
You have stated in other comments that you don't fully understand the web of trust concept - I'd go a little bit further and, based on the above, say that you haven't a slightest clue about it.
Why would they? It's not needed - '-F', '--retry' and the like are redundant. IMVHO, OpenBSD's '-f' behaviour should have been the default elsewhere, too. How many times in the past have you deliberately followed the file descriptor (coreutils' default '-f' behaviour) instead of its name? Every single time I used it in the past on Linux, this is what I thought:
"For f***** sake! I should have used '-F'! Arghhh...!"
> 3. This is where it smells fishy. "Revolution R Enterprise Workstation is licensed for a single named user, and available in two editions:". But is it a modified R version. They mention no change to core for open, but not for this. If they use R which is licensed under GPL how can they sell it ? Else if it is proprietary why call it "R"?
- the word "free" has several meanings in English, i.e. "free" as in "no charge" and "free" as in "freedom" (free access, free software, etc.) - the answer given there does not indicate which one of those is meant.
- patents have most likely been granted in countries that recognise them - this does not prevent from the patent being put into public domain. However, the second sentence in question 17 seems to indicate that the license bears a fee, which also contradicts one of the meanings of "free above.
Either way, the Q&A/FAQ is full of marketing mumble.