In my interview with Craig Burton in the August 2000 issue of Linux Journal ("Uncollapsing Open Source Distinctions: Talking with Craig Burton,'" p. 16), I said "...historically, the Open Source movement has tried to move away from the Free Software movement's anti-commercial rhetoric and policies."
A few days ago I got an email from Richard Stallman, under the subject "Who's anti-commercial?" His answer: not him. And not the free software movement, either:
"We do not have anti-commercial rhetoric or policies, and I'm surprised you would say this.
"I know why some people say we are 'anti-commercial'. We criticize a common business practice, and people who do that are often accused of being 'anti-commercial'. But the fact is that if a program does not allow commercial use, or if you can't sell copies, we reject it.
"We do not compromise our principles to cater to business; business today is so used to such treatment that anyone who stands firm when business says 'Change!' is likely to be called 'anti-commercial'. For instance, the GPL is designed to prohibit some anti-social practices, and this applies to business just as to individuals and schools. If people say the GPL is not "business-friendly", he probably means it dares to say no to some of the things his business wants to do.
"But the GPL extends the same rights to business as it does to everyone else. And we try to cooperate with business, in ways that are consistent with our principles. For example, I asked publishing company people for advice in writing the GNU FDL.
"So would you please post a correction to that statement about us?"
Since I was making distinctions between two movements, I decided to share Richard's correspondence with the prime mover of the other one, Eric S. Raymond, hoping to triangulate a bit on the full extent of my error. "Okay," I wrote, "did I step in it here, or (so far as what he quotes) am I right? Or sort-of right?"
ESR wrote back, "It's a tough call. No, the official interpretation of FSF doctrine is not anti-commercial. In that sense, yes, you stepped in it."
An OTOH followed, but it's not one that RMS found agreeable. Nor was RMS' disagreement with ESR's OTOH agreeable with ESR. The email volley between the two gentlemen continues to fill my in-box, so I'll leave that one alone for now.
Meanwhile, I invite readers to visit the Free Software Foundation site <www.fsf.org>. Here is part of the FSF's explanation of free software:
``Free software'' is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer.''
``Free software'' refers to the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it refers to four kinds of freedom, for the users of the software:
A program is free software if users have all of these freedoms. Thus, you should be free to redistribute copies, either with or without modifications, either gratis or charging a fee for distribution, to anyone anywhere. Being free to do these things means (among other things) that you do not have to ask or pay for permission.
So the statement, and I, stand corrected. For my thoughts about related matters, see this month's "Linux For Suits" on page __.
— Doc Searls