Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. That’s what I meant with that being a different thing, because if you look up the definitions and freedoms of the term “Free Software”, the term “Open Source” or “Libre Software”, and most other “free” licenses there is no mention of making the software available at no cost to everyone. It was not even the idea when the first free license was created, historically speaking.
That does not mean that it’s a bad idea. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost. Also, what’s wrong with doing it the classic way of making goods available to “poor third world countries, students, kids” through donations or state supported programs? Do you think the producers don’t get paid in that cases?
Either way, my point is simply that we are discussing different things when it comes to the freedoms in software licenses of FLOSS and providing something valuable for society at no cost.
Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way.
I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost.
There’s no need to come up with new terms or change the existing ones. Free software is inherently free in price. And you can’t enforce paying for software without the restrictions put in place (e.g. drm). Here’s a quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html :
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.
Free software can have a price, but paying it is optional.
Well, then you have to find another name for that kind of software and define it that way. That’s what I meant with that being a different thing, because if you look up the definitions and freedoms of the term “Free Software”, the term “Open Source” or “Libre Software”, and most other “free” licenses there is no mention of making the software available at no cost to everyone. It was not even the idea when the first free license was created, historically speaking.
That does not mean that it’s a bad idea. I certainly would support such an effort, i.e. to make software available to everyone at no cost. Also, what’s wrong with doing it the classic way of making goods available to “poor third world countries, students, kids” through donations or state supported programs? Do you think the producers don’t get paid in that cases?
Either way, my point is simply that we are discussing different things when it comes to the freedoms in software licenses of FLOSS and providing something valuable for society at no cost.
There’s no need to come up with new terms or change the existing ones. Free software is inherently free in price. And you can’t enforce paying for software without the restrictions put in place (e.g. drm). Here’s a quote from https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html :
Free software can have a price, but paying it is optional.