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__
