I understand the impulse though. We all believe our hard work at creating something of value should be compensated. But it flies in the face of the 'free software' ideology. Which is why I don't endorse open projects at all.
Or don't I understand the FSF at all? That's possible.
If a friend helps you there is usually a unspoken contract that you will help them in return. They are not a 1:1 trade but any social relationship is a give and take. Very few things in life has one party that only take and an other that only gives.
The strength of that "unspoken contract" diminishes as you move from personal friend to distant organization.
I agree that this software has value and it would be nice for people to support it monetarily, but it seems unreasonable to get upset when people don't.
With free software, the freedom to copy software generally does mean the software is available at no cost, but that's not the goal behind the philosophy, nor is there any restriction on selling it or encouraging donations.
Also, Beer is free at my house. Come over anytime!
I understand the other non-monetary freedoms that the FSF advocates, this is not about those.
Also, I don't see anyone getting mad at people not paying. I only see one HN poster saying it's a shame that organization depending on GNU on their infrastructure don't support the work of the FSF, especially after what emerged in the wake of heartbleed (I know OpenSSL was not a GNU project, but the problem is similar).
> It seems strange to make something available without payment and then get mad when people don't pay.
Seems to imply that "get mad" here refers to the fsf getting mad, which was the reason for my comment.
That's the definition according to gnu and shouldn't be parroted as the definition. Generally, when people say "free", even with software, they mean price.
But I'm curious: can you find a definition or usage of "free software" that predates the gnu manifesto? Because that would be something useful in the discussion about changing the name (which it's something that is being debated).
The parent to your post did not ask that question. In fact that post displayed the exact point that I mentioned to you, that many people don't use free the same as the definition you quoted.
What you quoted is a definition from gnu.org not fsf.org. They, in fact, use two different definitions, which was another point that I made - to not quote gnu.org as the definition, especially in a conversation about donating to the fsf.
No, there's really not, because free software is about freedom, not price. C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre
> Or don't I understand the FSF at all?
I think that's the case. Read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html for more about the Four Freedoms: to run, to study, to distribute copies & to distribute modifications.
The FSF (for all its faults) has done a lot of good in the world, and companies like Google & Amazon owe it a huge moral debt. They are under no legal compulsion to pay it a single cent, but it's fair to say that without the Free Software Foundation there would be no modern web.
Look, I'm literally a card-carrying FSF supporter, but I would think that if the FSF didn't develop GNU the UNIX war would probably have ended anyway, BSD would be free of AT&T code and we would all be using a BSD variant.
RMS is possibly considering renaming it, too: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7t97sn/fsf_foundatio...