"Even before interviewing Richard Stallman, the journalist still didn't understand the difference between free/libre and free/gratis."

The problem is that "free/gratis" and "free/libre" are intertwined. If you sell an app to a user that is under the GNU license, they have the right to re-compile and re-release it for free (and it's allowed under the license).

I've tried to charge for software under the GNU license. The type of people that use it generally expect it free as in beer. If it isn't, you get hate mail and someone will eventually release their own free version (which is an exact copy of the the paid edition) to compete with yours. You will slowly lose all of your sales and traffic unless you also release it for free.

Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it.

If you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is.

"Why would you expect to do one thing once and then resource to virtually cost-free copying to get money from it? If people won't pay for it is because they feel is not worth to pay. Indeed if I can get something for free I'm not so much inclined to pay for it."

People won't pay for it because all of my hard work and updates are immediately shared, for free, by someone that bought it once (allowable by the GNU license). You aren't allowed to restrict the user in the form of a proprietary license.

"f you keep developing it and charge for access to a privileged access to updates, I'm sure you're sales will keep up. If you're updates are worth it, that is."

As long as you are using the GNU license, these changes can be shared for free.

This is why services are the way of the future. No piracy, updates are easy, and you also get to charge a monthly fee.

Well, I don't know if you're aware of it, but you just repeated what I replied to you with a different phrasing.

A service is completely different. For one, you are not giving out any source code. If you do give out all your service source code under the GPL, you still have the same problem. If a single person buys it, they can then continually release a free version of it with the source provided.

Only because you didn't seem to get my point the first time. Is it clear now?

This is so common but people who support the free software movement always make some excuse for why you're not making sales. People expect free software to not cost a dime. The entire foundation of the FSF is built upon the belief that we are all entitled to everything free and it's even in the license. I love when Stallman says you can make money with free software. Sure, it's technically possible but not feasible in the majority of cases. I feel for you, man. The lesson is that if you want to get paid don't use a free license. Go proprietary and no one will send hate mail.

I also think its crazy that people send you hate mail. That right there exemplifies the sense of entitlement they have. Don't get me wrong, I love free software, use it, and I release code occasionally but I'm not about to starve because Stallman says I have to choose either or. Free or proprietary, you must choose one is the message out of the RMS camp.

It's a tricky problem, because I'm not sure any word clearly encompasses the idea that "the user has the right to modify it and share their modifications". Open-source was one attempt, but has the other confusion that it's only about availability of source, not freedom to use/modify it. And RMS dislikes the OSI for other reasons, some of which are that they de-emphasize this user-centric freedom and instead focus more on things like why open-source software improves software reliability.

"Creative commons" is a more successful attempt, but has a strong art/music/literature connotation (which is where it's caught on more, with associated phrases like "right to remix" that get at the same idea, but in a very media-focused way).

Perhaps "liberated software"? I personally think "open source" and "open license" are sufficient. But yeah, FSF and friends are tilting at windmills with the whole "beer/speech" refrain.

"Software liberty" has a ring to it.

Maybe if they just tweaked it to "Freedom Software" .. people might get it.

This isn't a problem in other languages.

when more peolple get actually interested in programming and hacking, the right interpretation, perhaps the philosophy itself would be obvious. I mean, when the kids get that to play with on the school..

I've come across this misconception many times even on Hacker News and FLOSS-related community sites.

To see an example of an HN member who holds this misconception even after watching the interview, scroll up. It makes me really sad, both for the HN community and for the FSF.

> Maybe one day, the FSF will give up trying to force people to use the word "free" the way they insist it must be used.

Maybe sooner than you think: http://developers.slashdot.org/story/11/12/17/1735253/gpl-co...