30 Oct
2003
30 Oct
'03
5:12 p.m.
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
And irixx wrote:
The
"it" in "it is not free" here means the right to distribute
something (also commercially), and if this costs something, "it" is
not free in the RMS sense.
Actually, if you look at:
http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
you'll see that originally, there was no distinction made between the
two English meanings of 'free'. That came later. have you read RMS's essay on freedom and why
freedom also includes the
programmer's need to eat?
I think, I still didn't make it clear what I mean, so I'll try again:
1) If *the right to distribute* (copies of) a program/music
piece/whatever is bound to paying money to the original author, this
piece of music/software/... is not free in the free speech sense.
2) If the software/track/whatever is only available for money from the
original author, it still can be free in the free speech sense
depending on the license.
I hope you see the distinction I made between the "right to distribute
something" (the license) and the "something". If the right is bound to
giving money to the creator it is not a free good, with free as in
speech, because it would violate the "free distribution of copies"
clause. This does not mean, and I never intended to say this, that you
cannot take money for your work.
To also quote the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):
"``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program
must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and
commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no
longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important."
ciao
--
Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__