[JoeAltmaier]

There's something very contrary about expecting payment/compensation for FSF software. "Its free! Except if its useful; then it should cost you money!" That's a strange guilt-trip.

I understand the impulse though. We all believe our hard work at creating something of value should be compensated. But it flies in the face of the 'free software' ideology. Which is why I don't endorse open projects at all.

Or don't I understand the FSF at all? That's possible.

[belorn]

I get stuff all the time that is presented as free while still having the understanding that there are costs. The streets, parks, education, they are all free if I don't consider that the Swedish government takes about 1/3 of my income.

If a friend helps you there is usually a unspoken contract that you will help them in return. They are not a 1:1 trade but any social relationship is a give and take. Very few things in life has one party that only take and an other that only gives.

[andars]

Realistically, if the government didn't tax and the benefits were available without payment, how many people would voluntarily pay? Many (most?) will accept a free ride when it is available.

The strength of that "unspoken contract" diminishes as you move from personal friend to distant organization.

I agree that this software has value and it would be nice for people to support it monetarily, but it seems unreasonable to get upset when people don't.

[dmm]

Free Software means free as in speech not free as in beer.

[andars]

But their software is also free as in beer? It seems strange to make something available without payment and then get mad when people don't pay.

I understand the other non-monetary freedoms that the FSF advocates, this is not about those.

[klez]

In the past, the GNU operating system tapes cost hefty money, for what is worth.

Also, I don't see anyone getting mad at people not paying. I only see one HN poster saying it's a shame that organization depending on GNU on their infrastructure don't support the work of the FSF, especially after what emerged in the wake of heartbleed (I know OpenSSL was not a GNU project, but the problem is similar).

[andars]

"Pony up" must mean something different for me than it does for you. I don't know what it means to OP, in my comment I mistakenly assumed my understanding of the phrase was fairly universal.

[klez]

Ok, but then

> It seems strange to make something available without payment and then get mad when people don't pay.

Seems to imply that "get mad" here refers to the fsf getting mad, which was the reason for my comment.

[JoeAltmaier]

I hear that all the time. It means absolutely nothing to me. Beer is not free; speech is 'free of certain restrictions'. What part is that phrase getting at?

[chimprich]

It's referring to the distinction between two meanings of the word in English. Free as in no cost, and free as in freedom. If someone said "have some free beer" you would assume the first use of the term rather than the second (although you might be suspicious that an offer of "free beer" had a catch). It's just a slightly witty way of explaining the difference between the two terms with brevity.

With free software, the freedom to copy software generally does mean the software is available at no cost, but that's not the goal behind the philosophy, nor is there any restriction on selling it or encouraging donations.

[dmm]

Spanish has two words for free: libre and gratis. Libre means freedom and gratis means at no cost. English is confusing because we use the same word for both meanings.

Also, Beer is free at my house. Come over anytime!

[cuckcuckspruce]

If you brew beer from scratch at home and share your recipe then your beer can be both libre and gratis!

[klez]

You may want to check the actual definition of Free Software.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html

[IncRnd]

> You may want to check the actual definition of Free Software.

That's the definition according to gnu and shouldn't be parroted as the definition. Generally, when people say "free", even with software, they mean price.

[klez]

We are talking about free software in the context of a donation to the fsf, and the poster above asked what is meant by "free" in this context, so for all intents and purposes that is the correct definition to link to.

But I'm curious: can you find a definition or usage of "free software" that predates the gnu manifesto? Because that would be something useful in the discussion about changing the name (which it's something that is being debated).

[IncRnd]

> We are talking about free software in the context of a donation to the fsf, and the poster above asked what is meant by "free" in this context

The parent to your post did not ask that question. In fact that post displayed the exact point that I mentioned to you, that many people don't use free the same as the definition you quoted.

What you quoted is a definition from gnu.org not fsf.org. They, in fact, use two different definitions, which was another point that I made - to not quote gnu.org as the definition, especially in a conversation about donating to the fsf.

[zeveb]

> There's something very contrary about expecting payment/compensation for FSF software.

No, there's really not, because free software is about freedom, not price. C.f. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gratis_versus_libre

> Or don't I understand the FSF at all?

I think that's the case. Read https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.en.html for more about the Four Freedoms: to run, to study, to distribute copies & to distribute modifications.

The FSF (for all its faults) has done a lot of good in the world, and companies like Google & Amazon owe it a huge moral debt. They are under no legal compulsion to pay it a single cent, but it's fair to say that without the Free Software Foundation there would be no modern web.

[klez]

> without the Free Software Foundation there would be no modern web

Look, I'm literally a card-carrying FSF supporter, but I would think that if the FSF didn't develop GNU the UNIX war would probably have ended anyway, BSD would be free of AT&T code and we would all be using a BSD variant.

[johannes1234321]

In addition to the other comments: The FSF is not only a vendor so software, but also a Lobby organization engaged in debates around privacy and control over computer systems (incl. DRM and such topics).

[lifeformed]

Yeah, but if you're an entity with infinite money, and derive great benefits from using it, it seems reasonable to toss them a few dollars. Not even just to be nice, but to ensure it continues to grow so you can keep milking it later.

[shmerl]

I think you are mixing up freedom with expectation that work should be done for free.

[brndnmtthws]

You may be confused about the use of the term "free" in this context. It isn't about giving stuff away for $0 in compensation, it's about freedom in the sense of liberty and freedom to modify software you own.

RMS is possibly considering renaming it, too: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/7t97sn/fsf_foundatio...

[cup-of-tea]

You don't understand it at all.

[klez]

This comment doesn't help much, does it? Especially when there are a lot of comments already trying to explain the confusion in a more constructive way.