I don’t love their license. But I think that a license that says you aren’t free to redistribute this software or it’s derivatives for a fee (including by letting users use it over a network) if you’re a corporation making over $1 billion a year in revenue is perfectly compatible with the original intent of free software.
The freedoms were about freedom for the user not a non user developer.
If you're talking about free-as-in-freedom software, promoted by Richard Stallman and the FSF, then they have always been clear that Free software must not forbid commercial usage or require payment. Vendors are perfectly free to sell copies of Free software if they wish, but the license cannot forbid making copies and derivatives, even for commercial usage. See:
The principles predate modern SaaS by decades. You can see it in the wording of the FAQ you linked. It keeps using the word "distribute" - meaning giving people a copy of the software to put on their own computer - as if that were the only way of commercializing software. Which it pretty much was in the 1980s.
There has been some revision over time, but there's an argument to be made that small revisions are inadequate to keep up with the sea change in how computing works that's happened since the turn of the century. The elephant in the room here is that SaaS, and especially cloud computing, has pretty well undermined the practical foundation for how the Free Software model was supposed to work for people who are trying to make a living selling Free Software.
Doesn't the AGPL from nearly 20 years ago address SaaS? Given that basically every big tech company bans AGPL licensed software, it seems like it provides adequate protection.
Because everyone was always a user in the definition of free software! Because it's free as in free speech.. In the first bulletin where the definition was made, Stallman envisioned no restrictions on distribution and a user being a business was entirely unrelated to how compensation were to occur: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt
In the very early days they were always the same, but differences between use and distribution emerged quickly.
For example, there are zero restrictions, duties, or obligations on using the software. But once you distribute changes (or in the AGPL case allow other people to use your changes), duties and obligations attach.
>In the very early days they were always the same, but differences between use and distribution emerged quickly.
I think those concerns existed at the time of the writing of the first bulletin, if you read how they were expecting to be compensated. See the part titled "So, how could programmers make a living?".
>For example, there are zero restrictions, duties, or obligations on using the software. But once you distribute changes (or in the AGPL case allow other people to use your changes), duties and obligations attach.
Yep, the duty and obligation to redistribute, as mentioned in the bulletin above - but without a single company being the sole arbiter or commercializer of the source, as defined in the Free Software Definition you mention elsewhere. Freely, as in free speech.. A quote from the original bulletin:
```
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a license.
It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming effort
will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the state
of the art.
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result, a
user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or
company which owns the sources and is in sole position to make
changes.
```
In the SaaS era, freedom is impinged not because hyperscalers make money off of free software. That was always the intended goal, because it isn't freedom like free beer or simply 'non-commercial uses'. Freedom is impinged because modifications of the software aren't redistributed if distribution is only done over generated artifacts on a network. AGPL is specifically for networked software like this.
Unless you're implying that the GNU foundation, Richard Stallman, or the free software movement generally ever viewed even narrowly commercially restrictive licenses as free software. Which you can tell from the source documents and all others in this comment thread, that is obviously not the case.
The world changes, everything changes. Already 20 years ago Stallman saw that his original idea was abused (tivoization etc.), hence GPLv3. In the web era we have a completely different set of issues to deal with, and one of them is the killing of incentive by the big three public cloud providers.
Back in RMS days, he advocated, for example, a RedHat-style business model where you sell Free Software with services. But when AWS takes your project and releases it as their service, good luck competing with them. This is a very real problem.
I didn’t think the idea of creating free software was to monetize it. If you create a software as “free”, then anyone including hyper scalers can use it.
Put out a restricted license if you don’t want hyperscalers to offer it as a service. Although they have enough software engineering talent to use the old version to create and maintain a fork (e.g. valkey, opensearch, etc.).
> Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
> Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can. If a license does not permit users to make copies and sell them, it is a nonfree license.
Those comments came later. Also making copies and selling them along with the source code is much different than the SaaS model that RMS didn’t predict.
If you think that the explicit reminder that free software allows selling is inconsistent with the original definition, then I think the onus is on you to prove that inconsistency. So far I read your comments as giving a sort of argument from silence that commercial transactions weren't explicitly mentioned in the earliest versions together with a gut feeling that your view is the same as theirs.
The original 1986 definition, which I see you referring to elsewhere, came from a news letter that's available here: https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull1.txt
The news letter itself cost $1. And it also includes an order form charging $150 for Emacs ($443.40 in 2025 dollars). The tape and the manual come to $487.74 in 2025 dollars.
The issue with SaaS is loss of the freedoms, not that vendors charge money. Free Software was never about forcing organizations to break even or operate at a loss. If you believe that's inherent to the original definition then I think you'd have to present a clearer argument for that position.
Free Software Foundation Order Form
February 6, 1986
All software and publications are distributed with a permission to
copy and redistribute.
Quantity Price Item
________ $150 GNU Emacs source code, on a 1600bpi industry standard
mag tape in tar format. The tape also contains
MIT Scheme (a dialect of Lisp), hack (a rogue-like game)
and bison (a compatible replacement for yacc).
________ $15 GNU Emacs manual. This includes a reference card.
Thus, a tape and one manual come to $165.
________ $60 Box of six GNU Emacs manuals, shipped book rate.
________ $1 GNU Emacs reference card. Or:
________ $6 One dozen GNU Emacs reference cards.
Shipping outside North America is normally by surface mail. For air
mail delivery, please add $15 per tape or manual, $1 for an individual
reference card, or 50 cents per card in quantity twelve or more.
Prices are subject to change without notice. Massachusetts residents
please add 5% sales tax to all prices.
Thanks for clarifying. But I think that's the same thing in the context of the FSF's thinking. I believe you are arguing that missing freedom 0 implied a sort of compatibility with the non-commercial restriction (this is the argument from silence I referred to earlier). But from what I see, the incompatibility of non-commercial restrictions is forced by the logic. Freedom 0 was almost surely an attempt to clarify confusions and make explicit an implicit assumption.
There are really two issues here: one is what counts as copyleft (i.e. the ideal FSF license) and what counts as compatible with copyleft. The so-called permissive licenses like MIT and BSD are compatible with copyleft licenses in a way that licenses that restrict commercial access aren't. That's because these licenses don't add new restrictions but the non-commercial one does.
The abstract idea of copyleft is that it's a chain of rights grants A > B > C > D... where entities on the right have exactly the same rights as the entities on the left. In other words, copyleft preserves downstream freedoms, or ">" is a freedom preserving operator for copyleft software.
A permissive licensed piece of software X can be incorporated into copyleft software, say, B because X does not restrict any freedom required to be free software. However once incorporated, the chain becomes absorbed, you can't un-free the free software. So X >' B where >' is a sort of injection operation, but then everything downstream of B uses the ">" operator. X can also spin off proprietary copies of itself. Those are not compatible with free software, but they exist on a different branch of the rights grant tree and so aren't relevant to free software.
On the other hand a license with a non-commercial clause includes a restriction already. It's not a hypothetical restriction that someone else can add to a fork (as in permissive licenses). You can't take a license with a non-commercial clause M and map it into free software because, as you granted, free software includes the right to sell and the license doesn't grant the right to remove the non-commercial restriction. If it did grant the right to remove that restriction, then a fork that removed the restriction would possibly be compatible with free software.
What your argument amounts to in this framing is that even though A has the right to sell copies of the software, ">" doesn't have to preserve that right. This would require a stronger argument IMO, since (1) the freedom to charge is explicitly mentioned early even if it's not explicitly enumerated as one of the four freedoms yet, and (2) we have no examples where the FSF allows an entity on the left of ">" to terminate rights on the right of ">". That would break ">" as an operator.
The developer and the user are one and the same. Freedom for one is freedom for the other. Users should have the freedom to pay someone else to act as developer for them, as well.
These tenets are core to Free Software. Without freedom for users _and_ developers, there is no true freedom.
The freedoms were about freedom for the user not a non user developer.