> I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. That wouldn't be considered "free software" if house designs were the

> I can't build another house just like it, and I can't sell the plans to somebody else. That wouldn't be considered "free software" if house designs were the same as software. But they aren't -- software serves a functional purpose and is something you use constantly throughout your life. House plans are essentially used once to build your house and that's about it. Though of course you could argue that an architect could have a business model that allows for their clients to resell the plans (by selling customisations to plans or creating new plans for each customer). > Yet it would be very hard for him to make a living if other architects could just take his plans and use them. It would also be hard for "users" of the plans to be able to ask for another architect's opinion on the plans. Or to say "this architect is not doing as I say, I will take these plans to someone else who can help me better". > And the idea of selling giving the program away for free but charging to fix the errors may not be the best for all cases. You can also sell improvements or features. In fact, you can get contract work with people paying you to implement features in $freeSoftwareProject. Sure, it's not a very common model but it does exist. > but I don't think it's the only case. It's not the only case, but as a developer it's the case I always aim for. Licensing something under a lax license is generally a tactical move (it would be a greater benefit if this wasn't copylefted), but I personally will always opt for copyleft because then I can guarantee that the eventual users of my software will have freedom.