oh
I think that's pretty silly bc free as in price seems like a pretty important pillar to me. but thanks anyway for the extra context on the nuances between "free" vs open source and correcting my misunderstanding about free as in price
In the context of the software freedom movement, the fundamental pillars are the four freedoms - to use, share, modify, and share modified copies. It's never been about price and we even say that selling free software is okay.
It's a common misconception about the free software movement to say we're against "developers making money" when we're really just about computer users having the four freedoms. We just argue that those four freedoms come before the developer's business model.
this confuses me more, if it's free to use and share, how can it be not free of charge? is putting up a paywall not expressly limiting all four of those freedoms for people who can't afford to pay? I know the article says you could get it free from a friend, but how is that different from stealing if the original dev is charging money for it? idk it just seems weird to me to focus so much on free not meaning free-of-charge when the same effort could be spent emphasizing alternate ways of monetization besides paywalling software that's intended to be shared
besides that, it is sad to learn that people use a straw-man argument like saying someone is against developers making money just because of the idea that they support free-of-charge software. I feel like companies such as red hat have pretty much proven that free-of-charge software can be made in a system where developers still get paid (ie through selling support, taking donations, etc).
thanks again for the extra context, I appreciate you helping me improve my understanding of this situation
Libre basically means "free as in freedom"
oh that makes a lot of sense, so then the F in FLOSS unambiguously stands for Free as in no-charge, thanks for the explanation!
No, this is a common misconception. F has always stood for Free as in freedom. No part of FOSS or FLOSS refers to price.
This confusion is one of the reasons why the term FOSS or FLOSS is problematic.
oh
I think that's pretty silly bc free as in price seems like a pretty important pillar to me. but thanks anyway for the extra context on the nuances between "free" vs open source and correcting my misunderstanding about free as in price
In the context of the software freedom movement, the fundamental pillars are the four freedoms - to use, share, modify, and share modified copies. It's never been about price and we even say that selling free software is okay.
It's a common misconception about the free software movement to say we're against "developers making money" when we're really just about computer users having the four freedoms. We just argue that those four freedoms come before the developer's business model.
this confuses me more, if it's free to use and share, how can it be not free of charge? is putting up a paywall not expressly limiting all four of those freedoms for people who can't afford to pay? I know the article says you could get it free from a friend, but how is that different from stealing if the original dev is charging money for it? idk it just seems weird to me to focus so much on free not meaning free-of-charge when the same effort could be spent emphasizing alternate ways of monetization besides paywalling software that's intended to be shared
besides that, it is sad to learn that people use a straw-man argument like saying someone is against developers making money just because of the idea that they support free-of-charge software. I feel like companies such as red hat have pretty much proven that free-of-charge software can be made in a system where developers still get paid (ie through selling support, taking donations, etc).
thanks again for the extra context, I appreciate you helping me improve my understanding of this situation