3 ms·

The message of the FSF is not particularly relevant to economics. Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. If you want to have con

The message of the FSF is not particularly relevant to economics. Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. If you want to have control of your own computing then proprietary software is not necessary for any purpose; avoiding it is a must.

laureny 13y ago
> Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. Stallman strongly disagrees with you about that.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  No he doesn't. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Commercial” Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different issues. A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent. In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.
  - laureny 13y ago
    You are quoting the FSF's stand on the issue (which I don't have a problem with) but not Stallman's. Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]: > BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living. > > Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that other people wrote. Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html
    - spacelizard 13y ago
      >Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from that statement. Nothing in there says that.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      What I am quoting was, as is noted at the foot of the page I linked, published in "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman" and I am pretty confident it was in fact written by him. It strikes me as consistent with his other writings. The interchange you cite doesn't conflict with this view at all (or if you really think it does, please explain how). First, "selling software" is not the sum total of "commercial software", which is what was being discussed. Second it is not "selling software" that Stallman opposes, first order, but restrictions on freedoms of users to the end of selling software. This should be apparent from the fact that Stallman himself (as is noted in the OP here) sold copies of EMACS back when copying was less trivial. It's certainly the case that triviality of mass copying plus the FSF's "freedom 2" means that it is practically difficult to sell anything but the first copy (because people can simply get a copy elsewhere) but I'd argue that is precisely what Stallman is doing when consulting: selling that first copy.
    - shrikant 13y ago
      Sorry, you're just misinformed about this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Seemingly most relevant bit: "Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software."
    - Kim_Bruning 13y ago

laureny 13y ago

> Free software does not mean "non-commercial," it's free as in freedom. Stallman strongly disagrees with you about that.

dllthomas 13y ago
No he doesn't. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html “Commercial” Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two entirely different issues. A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its users have—are independent. In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear. Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to think that the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.
- laureny 13y ago
  You are quoting the FSF's stand on the issue (which I don't have a problem with) but not Stallman's. Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly. For example, a quick Google search returned this interview [1]: > BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living. > > Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that other people wrote. Stallman has been consistent for decades in holding this view. [1] http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/byte-interview.html
  - spacelizard 13y ago
    >Stallman has always believed that software should not be sold, either directly or indirectly I'm not sure how you drew that conclusion from that statement. Nothing in there says that.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    What I am quoting was, as is noted at the foot of the page I linked, published in "Free Software, Free Society: The Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman" and I am pretty confident it was in fact written by him. It strikes me as consistent with his other writings. The interchange you cite doesn't conflict with this view at all (or if you really think it does, please explain how). First, "selling software" is not the sum total of "commercial software", which is what was being discussed. Second it is not "selling software" that Stallman opposes, first order, but restrictions on freedoms of users to the end of selling software. This should be apparent from the fact that Stallman himself (as is noted in the OP here) sold copies of EMACS back when copying was less trivial. It's certainly the case that triviality of mass copying plus the FSF's "freedom 2" means that it is practically difficult to sell anything but the first copy (because people can simply get a copy elsewhere) but I'd argue that is precisely what Stallman is doing when consulting: selling that first copy.
  - shrikant 13y ago
    Sorry, you're just misinformed about this: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html http://www.gnu.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Seemingly most relevant bit: "Since “free” refers to freedom, not to price, there is no contradiction between selling copies and free software. In fact, the freedom to sell copies is crucial: collections of free software sold on CD-ROMs are important for the community, and selling them is an important way to raise funds for free software development. Therefore, a program which people are not free to include on these collections is not free software."
  - Kim_Bruning 13y ago