Eh, fair, I suppose. The mistake in this case was using the wrong term.
Semantics aside, I think fostering a sustainable ecosystem of software that respects users' rights is more important than forcing developers to give away their work for free.
> A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
Charging for source code does not infringe any freedoms. Does owning a computer and using an internet connection also infringe on these freedoms because it has an associated cost? Why should paying for software be different?
> If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
That's a silly argument. Nothing stops you, except that you might not have many users that would be willing to pay that amount. There's a world of possibilities between charging $0 and $1bn that would be acceptable for both developers and users.
Alternatively, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, and then one day decide to switch to a non-OSI license, essentially extorting your users once they're already hooked.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, but hide important features behind a paywall, or just neglect the OSS maintenance in favor of your commercial product.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license forever, and just work for free. Yeah, that sounds sustainable.
Eh, fair, I suppose. The mistake in this case was using the wrong term.
Semantics aside, I think fostering a sustainable ecosystem of software that respects users' rights is more important than forcing developers to give away their work for free.
> A freedom that you are incapable of ever exercising is not actually a freedom.
Charging for source code does not infringe any freedoms. Does owning a computer and using an internet connection also infringe on these freedoms because it has an associated cost? Why should paying for software be different?
> If that clause would not be there what would stop me from charging you 1 billion $ for obtaining the source code.
That's a silly argument. Nothing stops you, except that you might not have many users that would be willing to pay that amount. There's a world of possibilities between charging $0 and $1bn that would be acceptable for both developers and users.
Alternatively, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, and then one day decide to switch to a non-OSI license, essentially extorting your users once they're already hooked.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license to attract users and build your company, but hide important features behind a paywall, or just neglect the OSS maintenance in favor of your commercial product.
Or, you can use an OSI-compliant license forever, and just work for free. Yeah, that sounds sustainable.