> 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. I think it's unrealistic to expect that if you want to distribute something commercially, then you should have a right not to pay for it. It breaks the virtuous circle that makes free software great. I think an important distinction between music and software is that software requires active developer input to retain its commercial value, and the equivalent isn't true of music. For example, plenty of 1950's music still has commercial value, but most 1950's software does not. Given the often short careers of musicians, there must be plenty of people who are still getting an income from those old hits. (Probably not the musicians who made them, but that's another story - just ask the Rolling Stones). Without a 'pension' in the form of retained commercial rights, what would those people do? Be forced to keep playing live until they look like a bunch of ridiculous old men prancing around on stage? You've got to feel sorry for them - I'm sure they'd rather be playing golf or something. Cheers Daniel
