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

[al3xu5 / dotcommon]

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


-- 
al3xu5 / dotcommon
Support free software! Join FSF: http://www.fsf.org/jf?referrer=7535
______________________________________________________________________
Public GPG/PGP key block
ID:           1024D/11C70137
Fingerprint:  60F1 B550 3A95 7901 F410  D484 82E7 5377 11C7 0137
Key download: http://bitfreedom.noblogs.org/files/2010/08/dotcommon.asc
[ Please, DO NOT send my key to any keyserver! ]

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature