1 files changed, 243 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..6b36f2d
--- /dev/null
+++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html
@@ -0,0 +1,243 @@
+<!-- This is the second edition of Free Software, Free Society: Selected Essays of Richard M. Stallman.
+
+Free Software Foundation
+
+51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor
+
+Boston, MA 02110-1335
+Copyright C 2002, 2010 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
+Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire book are permitted
+worldwide, without royalty, in any medium, provided this notice is
+preserved. Permission is granted to copy and distribute translations
+of this book from the original English into another language provided
+the translation has been approved by the Free Software Foundation and
+the copyright notice and this permission notice are preserved on all
+copies.
+
+ISBN 978-0-9831592-0-9
+Cover design by Rob Myers.
+
+Cover photograph by Peter Hinely.
+ -->
+
+
+ <a name="Selling-Free-Software">
+ </a>
+ <h1 class="chapter">
+  10. Selling Free Software
+ </h1>
+ <a name="index-selling_002c-free-software-2">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  Many people believe that the spirit of the
+  <a name="index-GNU_002c-GNU-Project-4">
+  </a>
+  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 free software
+to charge as much as they wish or can. 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, 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>
+  Nonfree programs 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 users don’t have 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>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-raise-funds">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-development_002c-fundraising-1">
+ </a>
+ <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 name="index-FSF_002c-how-you-can-help-3">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-development_002c-fundraising-2">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-development_002c-contributions-and-donations-2">
+  </a>
+  Free Software Foundation. This way you can
+advance the world of free software.
+ </p>
+ <p>
+  <em>
+   Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don’t waste it!
+  </em>
+ </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>
+ <a name="Will-a-Higher-Distribution-Price-Hurt-Some-Users_003f">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+  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
+proprietary software, 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>
+ <a name="Will-a-Higher-Distribution-Price-Discourage-Use-of-Free-Software_003f">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+  Will a Higher Distribution Price Discourage Use of Free Software?
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-selling_002c-and-distribution-fees">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-develop-more-free-software">
+ </a>
+ <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>
+ <a name="index-manuals_002c-need-for-2">
+ </a>
+ <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-write-free-documentation">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  The most direct way to do this is by writing needed
+free software or manuals yourself. But if you do
+distribution rather than writing, the best way you can help is by
+  <a name="index-call-to-action_002c-raise-funds-1">
+  </a>
+  raising funds for others to write them.
+ </p>
+ <a name="The-Term-_0060_0060Selling-Software_0027_0027-Can-Be-Confusing-Too">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+  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 “selling software,”
+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>
+ <a name="High-or-Low-Fees_002c-and-the-GNU-GPL">
+ </a>
+ <h3 class="subheading">
+  High or Low Fees, and the GNU GPL
+ </h3>
+ <a name="index-GPL_002c-high-or-low-fees-and">
+ </a>
+ <p>
+  Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (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 in this case we have to limit the fee 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.
+  <a name="index-selling_002c-free-software-3">
+  </a>
+  <a name="index-selling_002c-and-distribution-fees-1">
+  </a>
+ </p>
+ <hr size="2"/>
+