It's because free software is more about the freedom of others. And GPL does not prohibit making money out of GPLed software. Making money in software is not equal to restricting the freedoms of the people that use that software. That's a single model, and a mostly obsolete one at that.

 

I doubt I follow.

I said, “GPL explicitly prohibits the using of the software as I want if I occasionally want to make money out of it and not give the sources back.” Do I belong to others regarding RMS?—Indeed. Does my freedom suck?—Indeed.

Thing is, you can still make money out of it if you give the sources back. It totally changes your relationship with the person you're giving the sources to, be it your customer or the whole wide world. That's what Paula's post is about.
RMS probably doesn't understand lots of things, but he understands what freedoms is all about. It's about agency and empowerment, yours and the others. Giving freedom to others is no prohibition for you. You keep all your freedoms as an author (including making money, only not by restricting others' freedoms), but you share some of them with others.

I don’t buy it. You are arguing with either part of my statement. That is a fancy demagogic ploy, but it does not deserve time to confront.

Giving freedom to others is no prohibition for you.

Please let me decide what is a prohibition for me.

GPL implies restrictions. Restriction is an antonym of freedom. That simple.

code of conduct - report abuse