Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Announcing Gnomoradio
From: Frank Barknecht (fbar_AT_footils.org)
Date: Thu Oct 30 2003 - 23:11:40 EET
Hallo,
Daniel James hat gesagt: // Daniel James wrote:
> > The "it" in "it is not free" here means the right to distribute
> > something (also commercially), and if this costs something, "it" is
> > not free in the RMS sense.
>
> Actually, if you look at:
>
> http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
>
> you'll see that originally, there was no distinction made between the
> two English meanings of 'free'. That came later.
And irixx wrote:
> have you read RMS's essay on freedom and why freedom also includes the
> programmer's need to eat?
I think, I still didn't make it clear what I mean, so I'll try again:
1) If *the right to distribute* (copies of) a program/music
piece/whatever is bound to paying money to the original author, this
piece of music/software/... is not free in the free speech sense.
2) If the software/track/whatever is only available for money from the
original author, it still can be free in the free speech sense
depending on the license.
I hope you see the distinction I made between the "right to distribute
something" (the license) and the "something". If the right is bound to
giving money to the creator it is not a free good, with free as in
speech, because it would violate the "free distribution of copies"
clause. This does not mean, and I never intended to say this, that you
cannot take money for your work.
To also quote the FSF (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html):
"``Free software'' does not mean ``non-commercial''. A free program
must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and
commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no
longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important."
ciao
-- Frank Barknecht _ ______footils.org__
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Thu Oct 30 2003 - 23:12:05 EET