Commercial Use

Authors Jason Self

Plaintext

jxself.org

Commercial Use Home

Wed, 29 Mar 2017 Linux-libre
Someone recently asked me "in what way the freedoms of the readers/spectators/... of
an artistic work are harmed if that work cannot be commercially used?" GitWeb

This person is already supportive of free software. How To
I decided to put my response here:
Articles
Apply those same questions to software. It's a multi-part answer.
RSS Feed
Free software (and also free culture) is for everyone. Even people doing it
commercially (i.e., for money) like companies or individuals. Otherwise it treats people About Me
differently, with different classes. Because if commercial usage was disallowed for
everyone else the copyright holder isn't barred from doing it. Avoiding that (because
everyone should be treated equally; isn't that what this whole thing's been about to
Contact Me
begin with? Avoiding the power control of one over another?) means companies
GPL enforced
should have the same rights to free software (and free culture) as individuals do and
use the free software (and free culture) stuff for their own purposes. Why can't they
use that scheduling program to manage the appointment schedule of their haircutting If you appreciate any of the things I
business? Why can't they use that music for their hold music (i.e., a "commercial am doing you can make a donation.
use.") So that's part 1.

Part 2 is: Do we want free software (and also free culture) to be limited to the sidelines
where people do the free software (and free culture) stuff only at night and on
weekends while during the day time they go back to their day job making proprietary
things instead? I certainly don't. I want free software (and free culture) stuff to become
culturally relevant, if not dominant. And to eventually stamp out the non-free entirely.
That means said person needs to be able to quit their job and work on free software
(and free culture) things full time if they want to and still be able to pay their rent. That
would actually be a good thing: We need more free software (and free culture) stuff -
not less.

That means being able to make money from them. Don't forget that creativity isn't just
"I had this wonderful idea and now I am the only person that can use it." See All
Creative Work Is Derivative. Part of being creative also includes reusing stuff from
others, since it's already derivative.
So let's look at it another way: Take Mimi and Eunice for example. Nina is no longer
working on them. But even if she were what's the harm if someone decided that they
wanted to continue making new episodes while getting some money via, say,
Patreon? There's no harm at all.

If we want free software (and free culture) to be more than a side activity from
hobbyists on nights and weekends doing bits here and there gratis then money needs
to be allowed.

And hence we have "a free program must be available for commercial use,
commercial development, and commercial distribution", says the FSF in their Free
Software Definition. The same should apply to free culture too, and for the same
reasons.