Any license with restrictions sufficient to ensure payment is insufficiently libre. This is the way I read the FSF philosophy and the/. commentary. I welcome correction if wrong.
I do confess to some annoyance with the beer/speech distiction invoked ad nauseum, only to find any any proposed partitioning of the gratis from the libre toasted crisp. The COSS proposal is clearly flawed. Yet is the idea of getting payed for software, beyond "distribution and support", in an enforcable way, simply beyond the free software Pale?
I'm prepared to accept this, but I'd like to see it stated clearly.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm working on it.
Any license with restrictions sufficient to ensure payment is insufficiently libre. This is the way I read the FSF philosophy and the /. commentary. I welcome correction if wrong.
I do confess to some annoyance with the beer/speech distiction invoked ad nauseum, only to find any any proposed partitioning of the gratis from the libre toasted crisp. The COSS proposal is clearly flawed. Yet is the idea of getting payed for software, beyond "distribution and support", in an enforcable way, simply beyond the free software Pale?
I'm prepared to accept this, but I'd like to see it stated clearly.