Perhaps it is about 'freedom' for you, but it most certainly isn't for a large share of GPL advocates. Here's a sample of the juvenile mentality that pervades much of the "Free Software" movement (from this month's Linux Journal):
I manage several research networks where I have been using Linux (Red Hat mostly) for quite a few years and have been very pleased with not only the functionality but the great response from the Open Source community. This week, I received a somewhat unsettling call from a Red Hat sales rep when I asked for info on their Red Hat Enterprise Linux AS operating system. I was told that on December 31, 2003, Red Hat will discontinue support for their OS, with the exception of their Enterprise line, priced at $1,499–$2,499 per year, per server. I asked what the Enterprise version offered that I did not get with the versions I was currently using, and was told I would get support and an extended life on the kernel version (2.4.9). I am a firm believer in trying to support development in the Open Source community, and paying for a good OS is just part of doing business, but $1,499–$2,499 per server actually seems more expensive than the Microsoft offering, Sun Microsystems or Apple OS X Server. How do the hardworking programmers who develop the open-source code feel about someone selling it for what appears to be a substantial profit?
--
Robert Christner
MIS/MIT MIND Institute
Hardly a LJ issue crosses my desk that doesn't contain similar amusing, juvenile rants (in both letters and articles). And the fact that such letters are published says something about the publisher (SSC) -- That "the community" doesn't look kindly upon companies that charge for Linux.
"Free as in Beer" is a big part of the whole GPL contract. If you disagree, then just try to imagine where Linux and other open source software would be if it were still open source but cost $25 per copy.
Within the GPL culture, paying for commercial software is akin to a Biker riding a Honda Shadow.
[Coral Snake:] However like with the Free Software Foundation's public crusade for all GPL "free software" The Open Source Initiative's proprietary friendliness is basically smoke and mirrors. When people like Eric Raymond and Linus Torvalds say that proprietary and "open source" software are compatible what they REALLY mean is that the proprietary software is compatible until they can legally "filch 'n' copy" enough of a proprietary program's unpatented features to make a reasonable knock off of it under the GPL.
Coral Snake, I don't have a problem with the "filch and copy" (I would have said "clone"), but I otherwise agree with this quote. Within the GPL community, there is tremendous pressure to shun commercial software - even when it is superior: The words "good enough" are thrown around all too often when describing the quality of open source software (OpenOffice, MySQL, Gimp, etc.). For this reason alone, I believe that ISV's who write commercial software for Linux are wasting their time and money. But since most businesses don't mind paying for higher quality commercial software (if it pays for itself in time savings), there will always be a healthy market for closed-source software.
I do not agree that GPL software should be discontinued. The entire GPL movement is probably one of the only forces that provides competition against Microsoft, and that reason alone is a good thing. GPL software provides pricing pressure and some feature pressure as well (e.g. Apache). I'd like to see some changes made to Microsoft's licensing - i.e. generous installations allowed - as long as only one copy in use (like Borland's original licensing). I'd like to see it become easier to uninstall MS software on one machine and re-install it on another (which is difficult with MS's Product Activation). Without Linux and GPL software, these things would be less likely to occur. While everyone would like to hold a monopoly position, competition forces everyone to improve their products and services.