From 2d97ecc2c1ac605ca49e8a866b309daaeb7a831c Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: MS Date: Wed, 22 Jul 2020 14:53:45 +0200 Subject: Installing the Blog --- talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html | 243 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 243 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/scrap1_10.html') 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 @@ + + + + + +

+ 10. Selling Free Software +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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 + + make +some money. + + Redistributing free software is a good and +legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit +from it. +

+ + + + +

+ 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 + + + + + + + Free Software Foundation. This way you can +advance the world of free software. +

+

+ + Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for development. Don’t waste it! + +

+

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ Will a Higher Distribution Price Hurt Some Users? +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ The difference is that free software naturally tends to spread around, +and there are many ways to get it. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ With free software, users don’t + + have + + 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. +

+ + +

+ Will a Higher Distribution Price Discourage Use of Free Software? +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ In the long run, how many people use free software is determined +mainly by + + how much free software can do, + + 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 + + develop more free software. + +

+ + + + +

+ 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 + + + raising funds for others to write them. +

+ + +

+ The Term “Selling Software” Can Be Confusing Too +

+

+ Strictly speaking, “selling” means trading goods for +money. Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we +encourage it. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+ + +

+ High or Low Fees, and the GNU GPL +

+ + +

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. +

+

+ 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. + + + + +

+
+ -- cgit v1.2.3