Re: [Bug-gnuzilla] [gnu.org #829168] GNUzilla and IceCat for Windows?

[Narcis Garcia]

"So, if "free software is a matter of liberty", then I think there is
something wrong and incoherent here. Do not you agree?"

I completely agree about privacy, DRM, etc. in M.Firefox.

Coming back to cost of free software...
You are basing the price question in a mistake: that you aren't paying
for accessing to free software, such as paying for a computer, for an
internet access, for recording a CD-ROM, etc.
If you haven't the resources (which have money costs for somebody) to
run a software, is it a price that prohibits you to use a program? If
you haven't a friend who gives a copy, is it also a price that prohibits
you the same? NO.
I think the difference with free software licenses are the rights that
them give you when you already have the program: the license doesn't set
any kind of prices, and you may use it without (paid?) permission, you
may distribute it without (paid?) permission, etc.

What happens to a program that it still doesn't exist? The requirement
of paying a developer to make the program (because if the software
doesn't exist, you cannot use the freedom to use it), may seem a price
restriction, and I think it's a comparable case as when buying it.

I can develop a program and sell it (for the price of development).


Al 12/05/13 23:46, En/na al3xu5 / dotcommon ha escrit:
> Il giorno domenica 12/05/2013 11:32:53 CEST
> Narcis Garcia <address@hidden> ha scritto:
> 
>> If I sell G.Icecat, I'm converting this project to non-free software?
> 
> No. Not by the license terms. Respect to the license, free software means the
> four rights are kept. 
> 
> But respect to people's freedom, selling a software could make it not "free" 
> as
> people whitout the money to buy it cannot take any benefit from the four 
> rights!
> 
> If you sell Icecat and I have no money to buy it, how can I get the
> "freedom 0" to run a program I cannot buy? Or the "freedom 2" to redistribute
> copies of a program I cannot buy?
> 
> 
> So, if we mean "free software" is *just* the respect of the four rights, then
> things are as you said.
> 
> But, if we say "free software is a matter of liberty" [1], then - I think - we
> should also consider it a matter of price! 
> And thus avoid commercial uses, which are something very far and different 
> from
> cooperation, collaboration, sharing.
> 
> GPLs licenses have been modified to the version 3 to avoid the limitations due
> to patents, drm etc. [2] That is good. But... having to pay for a program is a
> limitation too, and by this point of view GPLs licenses appear to me 
> incoherent.
> 
> Yes, I know, I am erethic...
> 
> 
>> And if I sell Emacs to someone, and he/she copies it to a friend, which
>> copy is free software and which one is not?
>>
>> I want to note that the license doesn't set the price.
> 
> I know it. 
> Free software licenses just assure the four rights are in. But (for the 
> reasons
> I have said above) the four rights become virtual rights when people have
> to pay for a program: how can I "have the freedom to run, copy, distribute,
> study, change and improve the software" [1] if I cannot pay to buy the 
> program?
> 
> 
>> OpenOffice was made with paid developers and, although people downloaded
>> it with no direct payment, that was a paid project under free software
>> license.
> 
> This is a different aspect. When I say people should not have to pay for a
> program, it means the license should avoid a price to pay for the software
> (that is one of the main reasons for copyright existence...). 
> It does not mean people's work should not have a remuneration.
> 
> 
> Coming back to Firefox...
> 
> If we mean "free software" is just the respect of the four rights, then FF is
> non free software as Mozilla branding does not allow freedom #2 on a 
> commercial
> basis.
> 
> But Firefox has also a lot of serious privacy issues, suggest and/or install 
> by
> default a lot of proprietary and/or non-free addons, plugins and javascripts,
> and suggest a lot of patented/closed/proprietary/DRMd formats. 
> 
> All these things are, I think, a lot more dangerous in terms of 
> freedom/liberty
> than the branding issue... But none of these things make it non-free software
> (respect to the license)!
> 
> So, if "free software is a matter of liberty", then I think there is something
> wrong and incoherent here. Do not you agree?
> 
> 
> Regards
> A
> 
> 
> [1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
> [2] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/rms-why-gplv3.html
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --
> http://gnuzilla.gnu.org
>