5 ms·

>selling free software is totally viable if you don't open source it If you're selling it then it's not free as in beer, and if it's not open source then it's

• matteoraso 3y ago
  You have it backwards. Open source software is free as in beer, while free software, by definition, is free as in freedom. The right to view or modify the source code is only guaranteed for people who actually own the code, and developers have a right to sell that. FWIW, Stallman actually used to run a business where he sold copies of GNU Emacs on floppy disks.
  • mcdonje 3y ago
    I don't have it backwards. Free as in beer (gratis): Given away at no cost to the recipient. For instance, a closed source program with a highly restrictive license that isn't allowed to be taken apart, repaired, moved to another machine, etc, but is given away for free. Free as in freedom/speech (libre): The recipient can do with it what they please. They can repair, alter, port, etc. For instance, an open source program with a copyleft license that the user may or may not have money paid for. While it can be libre and also be sold, available source code is a prerequisite for libre status. And the 'four essential freedoms' include the right to redistribute, which would necessarily cause that source code that you only make available to buyers to eventually become open source to the broader community. You cannot restrict the distribution of source code without impinging on the software's libre status. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#The_definition_and_the_Four_Freedoms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Free_Software_Definition#T...