That's not "his" definition of non-free. Restrictions on selling copies
commercially violate the Free Software Foundation's definition of non-free:
https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses
And also the Open Source Initiative's definition of non-free:
https://opensource.org/osd-annotated
https://opensource.org/faq#commercial
And also the Debian project's definition of non-free:
https://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines
In short, every single major free software organization requires free
software to allow the user complete freedom of redistribution, commercial
or otherwise. Otherwise the software isn't free in the sense of giving the
user freedom; it is merely free of charge.
2016-10-08 21:16 GMT-03:00 Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa_at_gmail.com>:
> That's your definition of non-free then... If I were a font developer and
> of mind to release my font for use without charge, I wouldn't want anyone
> else to make money out of selling it when I myself - who put the effort
> into preparing it - don't make money from selling it. So it protects the
> moral rights of the developer.
>
Received on Sat Oct 08 2016 - 21:03:24 CDT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 : Sat Oct 08 2016 - 21:03:26 CDT