
Freedom Zero Considered Sometimes Harmful - rbate
For users, Free Software has the undeniable advantage of avoiding dependence on its suppliers. You can arrange and share your own improvements. For many, the fact that it also costs nothing is less important. While fully-free works for some projects like the diverse and foundational GNU and Linux, the gratis consequence of Free Software licences has forced many Free Software creators to impose worse restrictions on user freedoms: Big Software limits powerful features or responsive support to the &quot;enterprise&quot; 1%, or uses a licence that limits competition. Small packages push ads, act like charities, or are created as either a poorly-supported recreation or a résumé item for a job making something closed. There ain&#x27;t no such thing as a free beer.<p>To instead let Independent Open Software Vendors (IOSVs) thrive, most users should pay to use their software. This violates the spirit of Free Software Freedom Zero, &quot;the freedom to run&quot;, even though it emphasises not restricting the software&#x27;s purpose. A new licence, The DevWheels Licence, allows software to be both fully-forkable and require some users to pay to use it. It does this by percolating user payments back through software derivation graphs so that each package creator gets paid according to the value their package has added over the packages from which it has drawn.
======
mtmail
Link to the DevWheels Licence [https://devwheels.com/](https://devwheels.com/)

[https://devwheels.com/motivation](https://devwheels.com/motivation)

