It’s rather funny how people will say, “Well, I just think this rule X means Y…” and somehow expect that particular take on a subject to be taken as law. There’s the Spirit vs. Letter of the Law, and then there’s peeing on someone’s leg while telling them it’s raining.
“No, the Bible doesn’t actually SAY Lucifer is the devil, or that Jesus overturned Mosaic Law, but that’s how I interpret it.” Call that a strawman if you like, but it’s the same sort of reasoning applied to the matter of where to draw the line between a rule’s technical definition and its practical application. It’s hardly an exaggeration.
” It, therefore, goes without saying that open source is free of charge.”
The four essential freedoms of studying, modifying, copying, and distributing have nothing to do with the exchange of currency, only that the four freedoms are maintained. The original developer and those modifying the code are free to charge whatever they wish. Of course, since someone modifying it can charge nothing, effectively bypassing the original paywall, there’s very little point (dominant strategy) but nothing outright forbidding it. That’s outlined in my earlier “selling” citation; Stallman even proposes a group could all chip in to buy a software package and then produce individual copies. If the movement were truly about gratis and not libre, he wouldn’t propose group-buying.
“do whatever you want as long as you acknowledge your ‘source'”
That’s technically inaccurate, because you can acknowledge a source that you use in a work of proprietary software. This happened with TiVo in a move called Tivoization. They used open source software, acknowledged it per the agreement, but did not disclose their own modifications or allow the four freedoms to be maintained to anyone trying to run mods on their “tyrannical” devices. So, attribution is not the full story of open source. Sharealike is the other half. In a more agreeable context, many videogames use existing engines under open software agreements yet still combat piracy because their terms of sale are fully compatible with the original open source agreements. Again, Open Source does not forbid the sale of software that carries such an agreement. In fact, “In ordinary situations, however, there is no such justification for limiting distribution fees, so we do not limit them.”
“People asking for money has nothing to do with the meaning or use of the above mentioned term.”
Exactly. Open source does not forbid monetary transactions any more than it demands or enforces it upon users and developers.
“I’m not trying to insult anybody but the fact is, open source is the complete opposite of ‘trademark’ etc.”
A trademark is not a copyright. A trademark is an exclusive hold over a distinctive image, logo, or other branding means to distinguish entities in the open market. As for open source being the opposite of copyright, the opposite of copyright is public domain, as even Copyleft mandates an attribution and that the same rights be carried over to derivative works (sharealike). Copyleft, as I’m sure you know, was the basis for the GNU and the Creative Commons. Only the CC makes restrictions on pricing, and only if people opt-in to attaching the non-commercial stipulation.
You may not be “trying” to insult anybody, but insisting that something is a fact when all information regarding the subject is not at all in line with what you’ve said, it’s as condescending as it is intellectually dishonest.
If Open Source truly was the “opposite” of copyright, there would be no call for attribution and no reason to preserve the four freedoms from one iteration to the next. There would be no precedent for enforcing this preservation of freedom and the Free Software Foundation would be redundant. This is a fact.
“Maybe inconsiderate was the wrong term. I should have said out of line. If you want to promote yourself or your business; I don’t think this site is the place to do it.”
Fair. As I said, if the guy offering file conversion for a fee was somehow going out of his way to block other offers, that would be a most disagreeable transgression. I’d also argue that converting certain files isn’t always as simple as import and export; mesh often requires repairs to make STL models watertight and fit for printing. That takes time, and as he said, he values his time differently than others.
“I just think sharing is caring (oldie but goodie)”
You get what you pay for, another golden oldie ;P
“so yes, I continue to respectfully disagree….”
Your understanding of Open Source is shaky at best, but I understand your intention and the point you’re trying to make. People deserve options, and the guy charging a fee for his time and effort is simply one of them.
Decay-Proof Record Scroll 