3 ms·
A bit nit-picky, but RMS is perfectly fine with commercial software (software that is sold for money), he objects to proprietary software (software that you can
by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y ago
A bit nit-picky, but RMS is perfectly fine with commercial software (software that is sold for money), he objects to proprietary software (software that you cannot read and modify the source code of). Freeware is not commercial, but proprietary. When you buy a Linux distro CD, that's commercial, but might be non-proprietary (depending on the distro).
- paulryanrogers 10y agoYet selling software--not services--seems incompatible with RMS's insistence on the freedom of end users to distribute without cost.
- cpach 10y agoIt sure is harder, but not impossible.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 10y agoIt's not incompatible in the slightest. If I write software and give it to you only in exchange for money, licenced under the GPL, then I am selling software completely in agreement with RMS's principles. Also, RMS doesn't insist on any freedom of end users to distribute without cost. Only on you not limiting their redistribution. Now, that makes some licencing models impossible, sure, but those are hardly the only way to sell software.