Re: [libreplanet-discuss] Is there any software that is libre but not gratis?

[Andri Effendi]

Hi There,
One example of Software that the original authors of the works
distribute at a fee, is Ardour.

Note.. One of the Freedoms of Free Software is to redistribute copies
and also redistribute modified copies.

So once someone has paid for Ardour, they can then help their neighbors
by sharing it.


Isaac David:
> Hi there Sam,
> 
> As a matter of fact all free (libre) software is subject to the
> possibility of
> being copied and distributed gratis; digital information is
> intrinsically so easy
> to copy and computers and computer networks make the costs of
> production and distribution almost nonexistent. Among doing other
> things, free software eliminates an artificial scarcity imposed on software
> by legal and technical mechanisms.
> 
> Having said that, there's still a cost associated with producing the
> original
> program and its changes. Nothing prevents free software developers from
> refusing to release their original products unless given a monetary value
> in exchange. In this sense selling free software is no different from
> selling
> proprietary software. I think you could find plenty of examples that fit
> this
> scenario. Just some weeks ago people on this maling list were discussing
> the possibilities and issues with paying for proprietary software to be
> relicensed as free, and I think Blender came up as a prominent example.
> 
> Finally, although free software can't guarantee that users will pay for
> copies
> to the same extent proprietary software can, some free software developers
> have emulated this unnatural business model and I can give a few examples:
> 
> * Back when Internet connections were slower and costly, the FSF sold
> copies
> of popular GNU programs that went distributed on a physical medium.
> * Minitube is a free desktop client for Youtube which for a very long
> time only
> offered Windows and MacOSX users the option to buy binaries (or compile
> them
> themselves). I'm seeing Minitibue runs both gratis and sold binaries in
> parallel
> now, but I remember meeting OSX and Windows users who asked for "cracks"
> and "open source software" alternatives to Minitube. Absolutely hilarious!
> * Ardour charges for all binaries distributed through their website.
> * I've seen free software Android applications like Mupen64Plus (based on
> Mupen) doing fine selling copies in the nasty Google Playstore.
> 
> I'm liking the shape your draft is taking. It's a shot of fresh air in
> light of
> Wikipedia's COMMONNAME policy commonly crippling correct terminology.
> Is that table supposed to be near-exhaustive or only a hint? If the
> former is
> the case, may I suggest the following:
> 
> * Adding "libre [software]" to the cell (libre=yes, gratis=yes,
> acceptable=yes).
>   Regardless of commercial status, "libre" and "Free Software" are always
>   acceptable for libre/free software. I understand that free software is
> easily
>   confused with gratis software in the English language, however in the
> free
>   software community the term has always referred to freedom, not price;
> and
>   you won't find the unintended meaning worthy of a Wikipedia article. I
> think
>   you also agreed to this interpretation when you correctly added "free"
> and
>   "free software" to (libre=no, gratis=yes, acceptable=no).
> * Removing "free", "free software" and never adding "libre [software]"
> to the
>  cell (libre=yes, gratis=no, acceptable=no) for the previous point's
> reason. This
>  could perfectly be replaced with whatever you have added to
>  (libre=yes, gratis=yes, acceptable=no).
> * Adding "freeware" to (libre=yes, gratis=yes, acceptable=no) and
>  (libre=yes, gratis=no, acceptable=no) and (libre=no, gratis=yes,
> acceptable=yes).
>  Although prone to misassociation with free software because of their close
>  phonology and writing, freeware is the very description of software
> that is
>  proprietary and gratis. Once again you can attest my interpretation
> reading the
>  relevant Wikipedia article.
> 
> Oh, by the way, "free/libre" as used in the free software movement is
> interchangeable 99% of the time with "open" as used in the Open Source
> definition. None of those definitions cares whether a piece of software is
> gratis or commercial, although the whole idea behind open source was to
> make
> free software more appealing to commercial settings.
> 
> I hope this helps.
> 
> 
> Le mar. 23 févr. 2016 à 19:38, Sam Pablo Kuper
> <sampablokuper@riseup.net> a écrit :
>> This is a genuine question. My impression is that the set of software
>> that is wholly libre but is not available gratis, is an empty set.
>>
>> However, my knowledge of libre software is limited compared to that of
>> this mailing list's users.
>>
>> If you know of any examples of software that are libre but not available
>> gratis, I would be grateful to know about them.
>>
>> My impression is that Red Hat Enterprise Linux (RHEL), for instance, is
>> not in that set, because the parts of RHEL that are not available gratis
>> are also not libre, and so RHEL as a whole is not libre (even though
>> *most* of its constituent parts are indeed libre).
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Sam Pablo Kuper
>>
>> P.S. In case you are curious why I am asking this, it is because I am
>> editing a Wikipedia "draft" to offer guidance to Wikipedia editors
>> writing about software. I am trying to determine whether there is a need
>> to provide guidance for writing about software that is libre but not
>> gratis.
>>
>> Here is the current version of the draft. The draft is absolutely a work
>> in progress. The second row in the table is the relevant one:
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Don%27t_call_non-free_software_%22free%22&oldid=706569795#Summary
>>
>>
> 

Kind Regards,
-- 
Andri Effendi <fusionman133@gmx.de>
Organiser of The Free Software Movement in Sydney
www.freesoftware.org.au/

GPG fingerprint: 8438 138D ECDA 05E0 591F  F2B4 4721 0F03 AC24 DF73
Confidentiality cannot be guaranteed on emails sent or received unencrypted.