That's not "his" definition of non-free. Restrictions on selling copies commercially violate the Free Software Foundation's definition of non-free: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
And also the Open Source Initiative's definition of non-free: https://opensource.org/osd-annotated https://opensource.org/faq#commercial And also the Debian project's definition of non-free: https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines In short, every single major free software organization requires free software to allow the user complete freedom of redistribution, commercial or otherwise. Otherwise the software isn't free in the sense of giving the user freedom; it is merely free of charge. 2016-10-08 21:16 GMT-03:00 Shriramana Sharma <[email protected]>: > That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and > of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone > else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort > into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the > moral rights of the developer. >
