diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html')
| -rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html | 248 |
1 files changed, 248 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..38f4314 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/selling.html @@ -0,0 +1,248 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.86 --> +<title>Selling Free Software +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/selling.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>Selling Free Software</h2> + +<p><em><a href="/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html">Some views on the +ideas of selling exceptions to free software licenses, such as the GNU +GPL</a> are also available.</em></p> + +<p> +Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you +should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that +you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover +the cost. This is a misunderstanding.</p> + +<p> +Actually, we encourage people who redistribute +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">free software</a> to charge as much +as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make +copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license. If this seems +surprising to you, please read on.</p> + +<p> +The word “free” has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer +either to freedom or to price. When we speak of “free software”, +we're talking about freedom, not price. (Think of “free speech”, +not “free beer”.) Specifically, it means that a user is free to run +the program, study and change the program, and redistribute the program with or +without changes.</p> + +<p> +Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a +substantial price. Often the same program is available in both ways +from different places. The program is free regardless of the price, +because users have freedom in using it.</p> + +<p> +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">Nonfree programs</a> +are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give you +a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. +Price or no price, the program is nonfree because its users are denied +freedom.</p> + +<p> +Since free software is not a matter of price, a low price doesn't make +the software +free, or even closer to free. So if you are redistributing copies of free +software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and <em>make +some money</em>. Redistributing free software is a good and +legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit +from it.</p> + +<p> +Free software is a community project, and everyone who depends on it +ought to look for ways to contribute to building the community. For a +distributor, the way to do this is to give a part of the profit to free software development projects or to the +<a href="/fsf/fsf.html">Free Software Foundation</a>. This way you can +advance the world of free software.</p> + +<p> +<strong>Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise +funds for development. Don't waste it!</strong></p> + +<p> +In order to contribute funds, you need to have some extra. If you +charge too low a fee, you won't have anything to spare to support +development.</p> + + +<h3>Will a higher distribution price hurt some users?</h3> + +<p> +People sometimes worry that a high distribution fee will put free +software out of range for users who don't have a lot of money. With +<a href="/philosophy/categories.html#ProprietarySoftware">proprietary +software</a>, a high price does exactly that—but free software +is different.</p> + +<p> +The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, +and there are many ways to get it.</p> + +<p> +Software hoarders try their damnedest to stop you from running a +proprietary program without paying the standard price. If this price +is high, that does make it hard for some users to use the program.</p> + +<p> +With free software, users don't <em>have</em> to pay the +distribution fee in order to use the software. They can copy the +program from a friend who has a copy, or with the help of a friend who +has network access. Or several users can join together, split the +price of one CD-ROM, then each in turn can install the software. A high +CD-ROM price is not a major obstacle when the software is free.</p> + + +<h3>Will a higher distribution price discourage use of free software?</h3> + +<p> +Another common concern is for the popularity of free software. People +think that a high price for distribution would reduce the number of +users, or that a low price is likely to encourage users.</p> + +<p> +This is true for proprietary software—but free software is +different. With so many ways to get copies, the price of distribution +service has less effect on popularity.</p> + +<p> +In the long run, how many people use free software is determined +mainly by <em>how much free software can do</em>, and how easy it +is to use. Many users do not make freedom their priority; they +may continue to use proprietary software if +free software can't do all the jobs they want done. Thus, if we want +to increase the number of users in the long run, we should above all +<em>develop more free software</em>.</p> + +<p> +The most direct way to do this is by writing needed +<a href="http://savannah.gnu.org/projects/tasklist">free software</a> +or +<a href="/doc/doc.html">manuals</a> yourself. But if you do +distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by +raising funds for others to write them.</p> + + +<h3>The term “selling software” can be confusing too</h3> + +<p> +Strictly speaking, “selling” means trading goods for +money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we +encourage it.</p> + +<p> +However, when people think of +<a href="/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware">“selling software”</a>, +they usually imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the +software proprietary rather than free.</p> + +<p> +So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way this +article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term +“selling software” and choose some other wording instead. +For example, you could say “distributing free software for a +fee”—that is unambiguous.</p> + + +<h3>High or low fees, and the GNU GPL</h3> + +<p> +Except for one special situation, the +<a href="/copyleft/gpl.html">GNU General Public License</a> (GNU GPL) +has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a +copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or +a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, so don't +complain to us if nobody wants to pay a billion dollars for a +copy.</p> + +<p> +The one exception is in the case where binaries are distributed +without the corresponding complete source code. Those who do this are +required by the GNU GPL to provide source code on subsequent request. +Without a limit on the fee for the source code, they would be able set +a fee too large for anyone to pay—such as a billion +dollars—and thus pretend to release source code while in truth +concealing it. So <a href="/licenses/gpl.html#section6">in this case we +have to limit the fee</a> for source in order +to ensure the user's freedom. In ordinary situations, however, there +is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not +limit them.</p> + +<p> +Sometimes companies whose activities cross the line stated in the GNU +GPL plead for permission, saying that they “won't charge +money for the GNU software” or such like. That won't get them anywhere +with us. Free software is about freedom, and enforcing the GPL is +defending freedom. When we defend users' freedom, we are not +distracted by side issues such as how much of a distribution fee is +charged. Freedom is the issue, the whole issue, and the only issue.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 1996, 1997, 1998, 2001, 2007, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 +Free Software Foundation, Inc.</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2018/12/15 14:02:39 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> +</body> +</html> |