Al3xu5, If I sell G.Icecat, I'm converting this project to non-free software? And if I sell Emacs to someone, and he/she copies it to a friend, which copy is free software and which one is not?
I want to note that the license doesn't set the price. OpenOffice was made with paid developers and, although people downloaded it with no direct payment, that was a paid project under free software license. Al 11/05/13 20:28, En/na al3xu5 / dotcommon ha escrit: > Il giorno venerdì 10/05/2013 12:46:43 CEST > Ivan Zaigralin <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> Brett Smith is not the final word on whether or not Firefox is >> free software. Any Joe Shmoe can build Firefox without >> branding by using an upstream switch. It's a very minor hurdle, >> and no, it's not at all clear that it makes the software non-free. >> >> The main issue with Firefox is its reckless attitude towards >> default settings, plugin licenses, and javascript licenses. >> None of these things make it non-free software, but they all >> directly suggest non-free software to users. To shield oneself >> from the non-free code on the Web is the only valid reason to >> run GNU Icecat over unbranded vanilla Firefox. >> >> The point is, if your problem with Firefox is non-freedom of the >> program, then then you should simply build it without branding. >> And if you actually want Icecat's features, then you need to stop >> and think, because the spyware known as Windows renders them >> completely pointless. >> >> On 05/10/2013 11:38 AM, Jason Self wrote: >>> Narcis Garcia said: >>>> You can use M.Firefox in MS/Windows, and you will enjoy the same >>> advantages. >>> >>> Except for that fact that Mozilla Firefox is not free software. >>> >>> What makes it non-free, you ask? I refer you back to the four basic >>> freedoms. >>> For a program to be free you must be able to use all four freedoms on a >>> commercial of non-commercial basis [0]. That's an important part: >>> Commercial >>> and non-commercial use must be treated entirely equally. >>> >>> Mozilla does not allow freedom #2 on a commercial basis, rendering >>> Mozilla-branded copies non-free [1]. Recommending that someone use a >>> non-free >>> program is probably not a good idea. >>> >>> [0] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html >>> [1] >>> http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/gnu-linux-libre/2011-08/msg00014.html >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org > > Just to say that in my opinion if a program respects all the four > "freedoms" (would be better to say "rights") BUT could be used in a commercial > way, then it is NOT free software: indeed, all the people without money to pay > for it (which more often is the most people in the world) is NOT able to use > any of the four "rights"... > > Allowing commercial uses is a severe freedom "bug" (I call it the "commercial > use" issue) in the GPLs! > > As Ivan well said, "the main issue with Firefox is its reckless attitude > towards default settings, plugin licenses, and javascript licenses" and - a > lot > more than the branding issue with the "freedom" #2 (the "commercial use" > issue) > - all these issues are the main reasons for which Firefox is NOT free, > althought > (Ivan again) "None of these things make it non-free software"! > > Regards > A > > > > -- > http://gnuzilla.gnu.org > -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
