4 ms·

When Stallman says "free as in free speech, not free beer", he means freedom to use software in any way you want including changing it. Not zero price.

rndgermandude 5y ago
Except this model is practically "zero price". Yes, you can sell GPL software, but on the customer side, buying such software cannot be justified economically, if all you got to do is to find somebody/some place that will provide this software to you free of charge and legally so. The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. All of the open source companies/people that come to mind are not selling libre software, they are all selling some kind of service - support contracts, managed hosting, etc - or they embraced some kind of freemium/"open core" model (so they are really selling non-free software), or they are funded by charitable donations and sometimes public grants, often by having some large non-free companies being sponsors (Linus Torvalds is paid this way for example, through sponsorship money from the who-is-who of the non-free corporate world distributed through the Linux Foundation).
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  Ardour has 10's of thousands of users, many of which get the software from their Linux distributions. Nevertheless, more than 6000 of these individuals choose to help fund the project to the tune of between $150k and $210k a year. So yes, although your observations are not wrong, they do not apply universally.
  - lovich 5y ago
    > The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. > Nevertheless, more than 6000 of these individuals choose to help fund the project to the tune of between $150k and $210k a year. How is this not covered by the posters comment about it not being a business but a charity if you rely on people paying more than they need to?
    - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
      > How is this not covered by the posters comment about it not being a business but a charity if you rely on people paying more than they need to? If that's your definition, then sure. That's not my definition.
- prmoustache 5y ago
  Game engine is not what is paying the developpers rent, and Stallman has always explained that he didn't believed artforms should be made open source. It doesn't sound complicated to me to understand that you can sell games whose code is open source but the 3d models, graphics, levels building and artwork aren't. Customer would still retain all free software liberties, be able to port the game to other platforms and the dev studios would still get paid.
User23 5y ago
No I mean literally working on GPLed code which means writing Free Software. But, since those companies never distribute binaries, they never have to share the code under the terms of the GPL.

rndgermandude 5y ago

Except this model is practically "zero price". Yes, you can sell GPL software, but on the customer side, buying such software cannot be justified economically, if all you got to do is to find somebody/some place that will provide this software to you free of charge and legally so. The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. All of the open source companies/people that come to mind are not selling libre software, they are all selling some kind of service - support contracts, managed hosting, etc - or they embraced some kind of freemium/"open core" model (so they are really selling non-free software), or they are funded by charitable donations and sometimes public grants, often by having some large non-free companies being sponsors (Linus Torvalds is paid this way for example, through sponsorship money from the who-is-who of the non-free corporate world distributed through the Linux Foundation).

PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
Ardour has 10's of thousands of users, many of which get the software from their Linux distributions. Nevertheless, more than 6000 of these individuals choose to help fund the project to the tune of between $150k and $210k a year. So yes, although your observations are not wrong, they do not apply universally.
- lovich 5y ago
  > The only customers that would pay are ones that do it for moral purposes, at which point your business selling GPL software isn't a business anymore, but something that receives charitable donations. > Nevertheless, more than 6000 of these individuals choose to help fund the project to the tune of between $150k and $210k a year. How is this not covered by the posters comment about it not being a business but a charity if you rely on people paying more than they need to?
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    > How is this not covered by the posters comment about it not being a business but a charity if you rely on people paying more than they need to? If that's your definition, then sure. That's not my definition.
prmoustache 5y ago
Game engine is not what is paying the developpers rent, and Stallman has always explained that he didn't believed artforms should be made open source. It doesn't sound complicated to me to understand that you can sell games whose code is open source but the 3d models, graphics, levels building and artwork aren't. Customer would still retain all free software liberties, be able to port the game to other platforms and the dev studios would still get paid.

User23 5y ago

No I mean literally working on GPLed code which means writing Free Software. But, since those companies never distribute binaries, they never have to share the code under the terms of the GPL.