"So, if "free software is a matter of liberty", then I think there is something wrong and incoherent here. Do not you agree?"
I completely agree about privacy, DRM, etc. in M.Firefox. Coming back to cost of free software... You are basing the price question in a mistake: that you aren't paying for accessing to free software, such as paying for a computer, for an internet access, for recording a CD-ROM, etc. If you haven't the resources (which have money costs for somebody) to run a software, is it a price that prohibits you to use a program? If you haven't a friend who gives a copy, is it also a price that prohibits you the same? NO. I think the difference with free software licenses are the rights that them give you when you already have the program: the license doesn't set any kind of prices, and you may use it without (paid?) permission, you may distribute it without (paid?) permission, etc. What happens to a program that it still doesn't exist? The requirement of paying a developer to make the program (because if the software doesn't exist, you cannot use the freedom to use it), may seem a price restriction, and I think it's a comparable case as when buying it. I can develop a program and sell it (for the price of development). Al 12/05/13 23:46, En/na al3xu5 / dotcommon ha escrit: > Il giorno domenica 12/05/2013 11:32:53 CEST > Narcis Garcia <[email protected]> ha scritto: > >> If I sell G.Icecat, I'm converting this project to non-free software? > > No. Not by the license terms. Respect to the license, free software means the > four rights are kept. > > But respect to people's freedom, selling a software could make it not "free" > as > people whitout the money to buy it cannot take any benefit from the four > rights! > > If you sell Icecat and I have no money to buy it, how can I get the > "freedom 0" to run a program I cannot buy? Or the "freedom 2" to redistribute > copies of a program I cannot buy? > > > So, if we mean "free software" is *just* the respect of the four rights, then > things are as you said. > > But, if we say "free software is a matter of liberty" [1], then - I think - we > should also consider it a matter of price! > And thus avoid commercial uses, which are something very far and different > from > cooperation, collaboration, sharing. > > GPLs licenses have been modified to the version 3 to avoid the limitations due > to patents, drm etc. [2] That is good. But... having to pay for a program is a > limitation too, and by this point of view GPLs licenses appear to me > incoherent. > > Yes, I know, I am erethic... > > >> 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. > > I know it. > Free software licenses just assure the four rights are in. But (for the > reasons > I have said above) the four rights become virtual rights when people have > to pay for a program: how can I "have the freedom to run, copy, distribute, > study, change and improve the software" [1] if I cannot pay to buy the > program? > > >> OpenOffice was made with paid developers and, although people downloaded >> it with no direct payment, that was a paid project under free software >> license. > > This is a different aspect. When I say people should not have to pay for a > program, it means the license should avoid a price to pay for the software > (that is one of the main reasons for copyright existence...). > It does not mean people's work should not have a remuneration. > > > Coming back to Firefox... > > If we mean "free software" is just the respect of the four rights, then FF is > non free software as Mozilla branding does not allow freedom #2 on a > commercial > basis. > > But Firefox has also a lot of serious privacy issues, suggest and/or install > by > default a lot of proprietary and/or non-free addons, plugins and javascripts, > and suggest a lot of patented/closed/proprietary/DRMd formats. > > All these things are, I think, a lot more dangerous in terms of > freedom/liberty > than the branding issue... But none of these things make it non-free software > (respect to the license)! > > So, if "free software is a matter of liberty", then I think there is something > wrong and incoherent here. Do not you agree? > > > Regards > A > > > [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html > [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html > > > > > -- > http://gnuzilla.gnu.org > -- http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
