In <20101117172626.GB30626@turki.gavron.org>, Chris Jones wrote: >On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:25:00PM EDT, Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. wrote: > >[..] > >> Free Software has *never* been about cost. It is about the freedoms >> to use, study, and modify the software. > >How would one ‘use, study, and modify the software’ if one could not >afford it in the first place? Those are the rights guaranteed by Free Software to entities receiving the software. They do not make a requirement that everyone is able to receive the software. For some years, the FSF (which was basically just RMS at the time) was funded in part by sales of EMACS. Licensing under the GPL and charging for granting a license (not just reasonable distribution costs) is compatible. However, there is nothing preventing the receiver from distributing the software further with or without cost. This later fact (that Free Software allows further distribution with little restriction) generally causes the equilibrium price of Free Software to just reasonable distribution costs, in a free market. However, this is a result of market forces, not the license; there may very well be cases where Free Software that costs Big Buck$ can be sustainable. If I choose charge you $15 for kdebase.tbz, you may very well choose to charge the people you distribute it to $15 or more, but you might also choose to give a copy to anyone for free. The license (which makes some Free Software or not) does not restrict any of those choices. -- Boyd Stephen Smith Jr. ,= ,-_-. =. email@example.com ((_/)o o(\_)) ICQ: 514984 YM/AIM: DaTwinkDaddy `-'(. .)`-' http://iguanasuicide.net/ \_/
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.