On Wed, Mar 9, 2011 at 11:20 AM, Patrick Anderson
<agnucius@gmail.com> wrote:
Their actions are well within the constraints of the GNU GPL.
In other words, they are doing nothing illegal.
And I'm sure Richard Stallman would approve, since he is the
originator of the GNU GPL and has used it sell software.
"""I had no job, and I was looking for ways to make money from free
software. So I announced that I would mail a tape to whoever wanted
one, for a fee of $150. In this way, I started a free software
distribution business, the precursor of the companies that today
distribute entire Linux-based GNU systems.""" --
http://GNU.org/gnu/thegnuproject.html
In other words, they are doing nothing immoral (at least within the
thinking of the godfather of Free Software).
I personally don't see what the supposed problem is.
Why should selling Free Software be considered troublesome?
Do you realize no software license qualifies as "Free Software", (by
the FSF) or as "Open Source" (by the OSI) unless it allows for
commercial distribution - including the ability to charge for that
service?
This is really just part of the answer to the question of how artists
can cover the costs of "immaterial production".