I don't understand where people are getting this meme that the GPL or FSF has anything to do with (not) charging for software. It's about protecting the people

I don't understand where people are getting this meme that the GPL or FSF has anything to do with (not) charging for software. It's about protecting the people you distribute your software to, by affording them more equivalent rights you have as the author of the code or its derivative works. Here it is from the horse's mouth: > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html > Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don't waste it! There exist legitimate practical problems to grouse over, like certain business models (shrink wrap) made significantly tougher to pursue, or license compatibility (did you know that the main reason GPL has its incompatibilities has little to do with copyleft, but rather section 6, which mandates one is free to use the software for any purpose with no added restrictions...that's why GPL2 is incompatible with GPL3 and Apache2, as both have restrictions with regard to patents...and JSON, which states that the software must be used for "good, and not evil", or OpenSSL, which has the infamous BSD advertising clause), but this idea that the FSF or Free Software movement has anything to do with making software available for zero cost is a misconception that just needs to curl up and die. It's about the non-servile interaction between author and consumer. The author has the right to distribute and modify. So does the consumer. I honestly don't understand where people are getting this idea that software for zero cost is part of the FSF/GPL ideal from other than the fact that, regrettably, the preferred word of the FSF includes "Free".