3 ms·
Given that the first purchaser can just turn around and resell or give it away for free, the fact that you can charge is meaningless and pedantic.
by marcoperaza 10y ago
Given that the first purchaser can just turn around and resell or give it away for free, the fact that you can charge is meaningless and pedantic.
- cyphar 10y agoThere exist many companies that charge money for free software, please stop perpetuating this misrepresentation of reality. This business model has existed since the very beginning of GNU (with RMS himself selling physical copies of the Emacs source code).
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- pjmlp 10y agoAlthough true, by the very nature of how it works, nothing prevents someone else to sell the goods for you, thus cutting your income. This is the very reason most successful companies doing free software, do it by selling consulting, support contracts, training or hardware. Anyone whose software cannot fit those models usually ends up looking for another source of income.
- CodeWriter23 10y agoPlease stop perpetuating this misrepresentation that you can pay big bucks for RedHat Enterprise Linux or get the exact same software for free if you're willing to accept a name change to CentOS.
- cyphar 10y agoYou're confusing the meaning of the word "free" here. It refers to freedom, not price. RHEL and SLE both are free software distributions (mostly) and so you have the legal right (as per their license) to distribute the software.
- marcoperaza 10y agoRight, which means that they can't base their business on selling copies of the software. They make money by selling support and access to supplemental (proprietary) resources.