Would it be impossible to create some sort of stipend program at FSF? After all the creation and maintenance of software is allowed to cost money under the GPL.
But to make a larger point, if you try to model RMS's behavior using cynicism, you'll tend to make inaccurate predictions. To use a metaphor, his brain is running slightly non-standard software: His social skills are not quite compatible with standard protocols, but he will go to far greater than ordinary lengths to uphold his personal moral principles. I've dealt with RMS and/or the FSF a couple of times, and once I decided to assume that RMS wants exactly what he claims he wants, dealing with the FSF was actually rather pleasant.
Thus, if Stallman thought that programmers should live ascetic lives, he would have written long essays justifying why this was correct. But instead, he wrote long essays about why sharing and hacking on software was a Good Thing, and added (almost as an aside) that you are welcome to charge as much as the market will bear, and that doing so may often be a good decision.
No.
Free software was never about no money being involved. In fact, RMS himself used to get a lot of money by selling free software. Back in the day when Emacs was too big for the internet, RMS used to sell Emacs tapes at 100 USD each (with documentation and source code, of course).
In fact, he still thinks that you should be charging money for distributing free software:
Distributing free software is an opportunity to raise funds for
development. Don't waste it!
He also thinks selling exceptions to the GPL is another good way to support yourself. FFTW and Qt are two prominent projects I can think of that did this.
https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
The GPL itself is anti-freeloading. We give you the code, you can do whatever you want with it, but if you want to build on top of ours, you have to give back. It's all about levelling the playing field for everyone.
I have really hoped that the current app store model would turn out to be a great way to sell free software. A convenient way to pay, and you can download and install whatever you want. Optionally, you can have a link to the source code.
Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening this way. I don't understand why not. Perhaps I too am being too idealistic.
In at least one case it's because a single open source contributor with an ideological conflict with App Stores was able to get an app removed:
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/01/08/vlc-app-removed-from-app-stor...
By the way, VLC has been relicensed as MPL and is now available for iOS again.[1]
[0]https://www.fsf.org/news/2010-05-app-store-compliance/ [1]http://www.videolan.org/vlc/download-ios.html
See what happened to VLC as an example.
Also, I know some free games are sold on app stores. Wesnoth comes to mind. Have people come to spite the Wesnoth developers and put the same game on the app store without a fee?
You can list a couple of exceptions, sure. But I'll see you that and raise you all of The Pirate Bay.
That is, you are always free to charge money, but you are not free to withhold source or prevent modifications/redistribution of those modifications, because this restricts the rights of other human beings. Or said another way, your freedom stops where my nose begins.
[1] https://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/more-about-the-app-store...
The problem here is determining where the divide between "using the software" and "building on top of ours" is. The line becomes blurry when the software is (e.g.) a library where the basic use of the library is to base other software off of it (as opposed to a desktop app -- e.g. GnuCash -- where "usage" has a more straight-forward meaning).
There still exists uncertainty and ways around it (You can execute GPL programs or write shell scripts so that GPL programs execute your code) such that you don't have to distribute the major parts of your codebase, but the GPL has an explicitly different version for libraries that are supposed to be linked in to non-free software vs libraries that are cores of GPL software.
Eben Moglen seems to think, as I understand it, that it depends on how you distribute the thing. If you link dynamically but distribute the whole thing together as if it were a whole, it's a single work and all should be under the GPL. Other situations seem less clear.
It's one thing to "cash in" on a GPL/LGPL project (e.g. writing a nice GUI around GnuPG, but not giving back to the project) where you are just wrapping the functionality of the GPL/LGPL project. It's another thing entirely to just use a support library (like an xml parser) where the library itself is not the main functionality of the program and have someone saying that your project has to be GPL.
Same problem exist with complete overhaul mods to game. Counter strike simply wrapped around half-life. Half-life was not the main function of CS, yet if they had been giving out CS with half-life under a open license it would again be piracy.
Thus it is hard to see a world where copyright would allow someone to ignore the license as long the "library" is not the main functionality. It would be a nice world, a world with remixing and a explosion of creativity, but a very different world from one that we got now.
No! Nowhere does the GPL says you have to give back to developers, you just have to give everything to the users (and more specifically to your users), because they are the one with the product and the modifications. If they happen to be upstream developers, then sure, they will get the changes too, but that is not the primary goal of the license. It's all about the user being Libre.
git clone --token=0x1515151 <repospec>
If that would work it would be an interesting way of selling your software.
There's no reason why free software should just be given away. The point is to make sure users have the source code and the permission to modify it and redistribute it. It was never to make sure they don't have to pay in order to acquire the software.
Sure, if they can redistribute it, perhaps they could undercut you, but if we believe that piracy doesn't really hurt sales that badly, it seems likely that this secondary moneyless distribution might not substantially hurt the primary one.
> Sadly, it doesn't seem to be happening this way. I don't understand why not. Perhaps I too am being too idealistic.
As an indie app developer, I already struggle with people ripping off my apps and publishing them in various app marketplaces under similar or identical names, or taking my web app, wrapping it and charging money for it.
I have to imagine that if I used a free software licence, this would happen a lot more, and I wouldn't be able to issue takedown requests. Someone searching for the name of my app might find five or ten similar or identical looking results and have no idea which is mine. These other results might serve ads, track user behavior, gather personal information or perform other anti-user operations, leveraging the popular reputation my apps have built to do so.
If people want to bundle "my" GNU Octave and modify it randomly delete the users hard drive, that's ok. Free software allows this. Just don't call it GNU Octave, call it GNU DiskDestroyer or something.
There's simply very little reason for someone to pay for BSD licensed software, but there is reason to pay for GPLed software (even if only to get a different license for it).
People are very eager to work for free on free (as in speech) software just for the pats-on-the-back from "the community", it seems to me, at least as often as people do it because they're truly passionate about their craft.
With the rise of "have a github profile/opensource contributions" in job posting descriptions, it's only going to get worse. "Open source" is very rapidly becoming the "unpaid internship" model of hiring and distributing work in the software industry, and it breeds a sort of contempt for the notion of receiving compensation for one's efforts. I'm not sure that's a good thing with all the very-much-for-profit activity around software development.