From: johnston@me.udel.edu (Bill Johnston)
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Sun, 3 Jan 1993 08:14:39 GMT

In article <1993Jan2.215318.18942@husc3.harvard.edu> 
zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny) writes:

[ ... extraneous x-refs removed ... ]

>FSF does not give away its CD-ROM or distribution tapes;
>but up until this time, it has been able to explain charging for them
>as "distribution fees"; with the introduction of the differential
>pricing scheme for individuals and businesses, this explanation no
>longer holds any water.

Okay, I'll bite ... how would a pricing differential prevent FSF 
from using a "distribution fee" explanation, if that was indeed
the only way to "explain" a fee?   

The FSF have clearly advocated that the software industry make money
by charging for "services" instead of selling the right to use or 
copy software.  Offering a CD-ROM as an alternative to downloading 
and archiving many megabytes of source code seems a reasonable service.

Charging a higher price for businesses strikes me as unenforceable
and possibly a bit naive as a marketing strategy;  after all, 
businesses are collections of individuals who would presumably 
be clever enough to figure out a cheaper way to obtain a CD-ROM 
that contains freely re-distributable software -- if simply obtaining 
the CD-ROM were the sole motive for paying.

I expect that the reason for having a price differential is  
to offer businesses a convenient way to donate to FSF that: 

1) brings in more money than an individual's contribution  
2) is still easier to explain to the bean-counters than 
   conventional charitable contributions.

Past solicitations by FSF for tape sales (which were mainly
aimed at businesses and organizations) have clearly suggested 
that buying tapes is a good way to support FSF, and the recent 
CD-ROM offer was not much different in that respect.  The CD-ROM
offers for the first time a way of distributing the product that 
is convenient and accessible for individual users.

For those who see something sinister in offering essentially the 
same product with different pricing for different target customers:
all that one need do to differentiate the "individual" and "business" 
versions of the CD-ROM would be to change the package label.  With a 
$300 price difference, FSF might be clever enough to include some 
added value in the form of documentation targeted at business needs;
otherwise, they may risk alienating a business customer who pays $400 
and later feels cheated.  If this is the case, FSF can and will
be undersold by someone else with a better grasp of marketing and 
customer service.  I think it's more likely that business customers
will understand that the CD-ROM is more useful than a coffee mug or
a tote bag, and justify the price differential as a donation.

Mr. Zeleny concludes:

>                                       In short, GNU is neither free
>in the sense of being distributed at no cost, nor free in the sense of
>being distributed without imposing an obligation of its recipient.  

The first point might be true if amended to read "always distributed 
at no cost", but I can't imagine a scenario in which there is no way
for people to obtain GNU software at no cost;  free distribution 
can't be forbidden under the GPL, and there seem to be plenty of 
enthusiasts willing to donate time, effort, and equipment.

As for the second point:  what obligation does the GPL impose 
on "recipients" of copylefted software?  None.  How could it?

The GPL also places no obligation on those who simply 
compile and/or use copylefted software.  That is most of us.

It does place restrictions on those would like to distribute 
revised versions of copylefted software under a different 
license (without the permission of the copyright holders).  

This is an "obligation" of sorts, but it clearly affects a 
narrow group of individuals (ie, professional developers who
want to use GPL'd source code as a short-cut to a new product) 
as opposed to simple users or "recipients" of GNU software.  

>No more needs to be said.

Hopefully.
-- 
-- Bill Johnston (johnston@me.udel.edu)
-- 38 Chambers Street; Newark, DE 19711; (302)368-1949
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:4127 talk.philosophy.misc:3103 alt.usage.english:10198 alt.society.anarchy:974