[BadVista Advocate] "Free" software

[Guy Johnston]

Sunnz wrote:
> But once someone have 'purchased' one copy, he is free to dsitribute it
> with any number of people he wants, 100, 1000, whatever, and the guy who
> wanted to sell it can potentially only gets the money for the one copy
> he sells... kinda make it pointless to try sell any GPL software...
> 
> 2007/5/5, Jacob Maynard <indymaynard at maynard.homelinux.com
> <mailto:indymaynard at maynard.homelinux.com>>:
> 
>     I didn't misunderstand free. I'm not sure you understood what I
>     said. GPL
>     allows you to sell your software, but you would still have to
>     release the
>     source code for it. And you could redistribute it, if the original
>     copyright owner got the price he was asking for. That's fair. I wouldn't
>     have a problem paying, but I want the rights. I also want the
>     person/people who originally made it to be able to make a living off of
>     it. Did this clear it up?
> 
>     Jacob
> 
>     > Jacob Maynard wrote:
>     >  > With the free-software title, the developers of games would be
>     required
>     > to
>     >> release the source code for their games with the purchase of the
>     game.
>     >> Not
>     >> okay it for free distribution after that.
>     >>
>     >> See, each person would have to buy a copy of this piece of
>     software. If
>     >> another company stole the code for the game, (and what are they
>     going to
>     >> steal? An "if then" statement? Tutorials for this are on the
>     internet.
>     >> Direct3D code? Also on the internet and even available from the giant
>     >> themselves. OpenGL? Stress the word "OPEN." tutorials are all
>     over the
>     >> internet. It just matters how hard a person wants to work at
>     >> programming.)
>     >> they would be liable and would be infringing the
>     >> copyright/copyleft/license agreement. They could be sued. Anyone
>     >> releasing
>     >> the code for no-cost would also be infringing the license agreement.
>     >> Therefore, programmers can still feed their kids.
>     >
>     > You seem to have misunderstood what we mean by free (as in freedom)
>     > software here. Out of the four
>     > essential freedoms, freedom 2 is the freedom to redistribute
>     copies, and
>     > freedom 3 is the freedom to
>     > distribute modified versions. Just because the source code for the
>     games
>     > you're talking about would
>     > be released, they wouldn't be free software, because they wouldn't
>     respect
>     > those two freedoms for
>     > the users.
>     >
>     > --
>     > Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office files -
>     > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html.
>     > Don't get Windows Vista, get GNU/Linux - http://www.getgnulinux.org.
>     >
>     > _______________________________________________
>     > Advocate mailing list
>     > Advocate at badvista.org <mailto:Advocate at badvista.org>
>     > http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
>     >
> 
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Advocate mailing list
>     Advocate at badvista.org <mailto:Advocate at badvista.org>
>     http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Please avoid sending me Word or PowerPoint attachments.
> See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
> 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Advocate mailing list
> Advocate at badvista.org
> http://badvista.fsf.org/mailman/listinfo/advocate

That's true. That's why most people who develop free (as in freedom) software commercially usually
primarily use other methods of making money from it, such as selling support services and making
paid-for customisations.

-- 
Please avoid sending me Microsoft Office files - http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html.
Don't get Windows Vista, get GNU/Linux - http://www.getgnulinux.org.