"Free" here does not mean "free of charge", it means "libre" (guarantees the four essential freedoms [1]). The common quip is "free as in freedom, not as in free beer".

[1] https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html#four-freedoms

"The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others"

How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge.

Yes, someone will redistribute it without charge, but there are still ways you can make money from libre software:

• selling physical media (e.g. an installation disk or drive)

• selling downloads from a trusted, official server (with the bandwidth to serve a global audience)

• selling support

• asking for donations

• adopting a patreon model (if you want so-and-such feature or modification, please fund me so that I can do so)

and so on. Admittedly, it is more difficult to make money from libre software than non-libre software, but that seems to be a consequence of the law allowing non-libre software to be sold as it is (i.e. treating software like other copyrightable material). "It's more difficult to make money from libre software" is essentially "it's more difficult to make money when you don't threaten to sue people for inspecting, modifying, or exercising ownership of the tools they use". We could similarly say "it's easier to make money when you can threaten people at gunpoint", which would simply be true! were it not for society imposing a high price (imprisonment) for doing so.

> "The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others"

> > How is that not always going to end up being "free of charge"? Someone is always going to end up redistributing it without charge.

If you redistribute it. Doesn't mean you cannot sell your own software and allow the user to have the source code. The GPL allows the end-user to redistribute it, for free if they want, but it's essentially a non-supported, always behind version.

If the end-user adds some nice functionality to the software AND they then redistribute it, then they are forced to provide the source for the changes they made, which allows you, as the vendor, to incorporate those changes into your product. The idea is that, for any piece of software, the entire community of users will have the ability to modify that software.

After multiple iterations, even companies will get in on the act because they save money by contributing to, and using, the commons.

The point of the free software movement is not to prevent companies from making money writing software (that's a side-effect, sure), it's to ensure that the end-users' freedom to change the software is guaranteed.

Now you may argue that such a position, taken to its logical conclusion, will result in software developers never getting paid again. You may even be right. However that is not relevant to the movement's goals. Their goal is having a particular right for the end-user. Their goals does not include the well-being of the software developer.

It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant.

> It is pointless to argue that the movement, if successful, will result in software development being a non-paid activity, because not only is that not a goal for the movement, it's not even a concern for them. Hence, the argument is irrelevant.

That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications.

> That is incredibly false. It is always legitimate to argue implications.

It's not "incredibly false"; like everything else in life, it's "sometimes it depends".

In this case, making a successful argument against free software based on a side-effect of the movement has little to no effect:

1. The movement doesn't care. It's of no concern to them, so at worst they'll ignore it, at best they'll suggest mitigations. They aren't going to stop their cause.

2. The developers of the free software don't care. Many of them are already paid well even though the movement has been around for most of their entire lifetimes, and for most of them their jobs already depend on free software. They aren't going to care about what the implications are because in the last 40 years there hasn't been any negatives for the clear majority of developers, while they currently depend on it.

3. The users of free software (which includes almost all developers alive today) care very much that free software continues being a thing. They depend on it. Doesn't matter how accurate your argument is, they'll ignore it too.

So, once again, who is the target audience of any argument against free software? If all the audiences are going to mostly ignore it because it is against their best interests, why continue tilting at windmills?

Yes, but that doesn't preclude the possibility of building a business around the production of free software and even around its distribution.

He's a fairly important figure in free software. Probalby more like a godfather than a father I'd say. He lives what he preaches and he means it. I respect that. He sees any software (including firmware and video games) as bad unless you get a copy of the software so that you can modify it. His own license adds more stipulation to that like "if you distribute this software you have to release the code (and copyrights notices) that goes with it or make it available to those distributed to so they can modify it for their own use and this license is sticky". It's a bit more complicated than that but that's the jist. I think people who dismiss him as a nut should revisit how many times they've complained they are stuck with software/hardware that they can't get to work like they want or repair it because the company is defunct or refuses to fix old (non-lucrative) software/firmware.

He's using free as in free speech, not free as in free beer.

This quote is almost useless unless you know its origins. I think it comes across as a bit disrespectful of the people you're aiming it at because most won't know what the hell you're getting at unless they look it up.

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree with you there. If you're having to research the history of the phrase, you're overthinking it. It means exactly what it states, no tricks. "Free speech" is a well known phrase that means the unencumbered ability to say what you like. "Free beer" means something that everyone (ostensibly) likes being handed out without the need for payment. I'm not sure how one could more simply explain the "free" dichotomy. If you've got a suggestion, I'm open to hearing it.

I felt stupid for the longest time with this phrase. Even after looking it up. Until I knew the history more I didn’t get it.

The confusion comes from the fact that beer generally isn’t, well, free!

There is no implication in the quote that beer is generally free, just that "free" in the context of beer generally means gratis whereas in the context of speech it does not.

Where do you live that beer is generally free? I want to go to there!

If you release a game "free" as in "free speech", how is it not "free" as in "free beer" as well? What would prevent people from redistributing it? Nothing.

I guess I don't understand the question. Plenty of open-source projects charge money for a license. And even closed-source / non-free games have pirates. The availability of the soucre code does not determine a business model, the licensing does.

It's not really the end of the world if only some people pay for your software. You could charge for binaries but let people build from the source. You are willingly giving people the freedom to redistribute those binaries, such as to their friends. It's just not an issue. It's not a crime that needs to be prevented.