Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
I understand that if the license allows it it's fine,but my contention is it's still free software even if it's not freely distributable,
Once you prevent the 'freedom to freely distribute', the existence of the software as free software ends.
because i allow you (as a maker) to use it in anyway you wish to change it in anyway you wish and but don't give it away for free (as in beer) just because i allow you to do anything with it for your own use.
'Free' in free software doesn't mind about whether a person gives it free of charge or gets some cents, it speaks about the freedom associated with a software. Especially the following freedoms,
1. Freedom to use the software wherever you want, how many hardwares you want and how ever you want. 2. Freedom to study and modify the source code of the software. 3. Freedom to copy and distribute the software. 4. Freedom to distribute the modified software.
When you kill any of these freedoms, you can not call it as Free(dom) Software then.
In FOSS world, you can't let alone survive by selling one software as in proprietary world, rather you have to provide support and service to make 'some' money. If your software is so good and critical to a user, he most probably wont give it to others and loose some lead in the competition. Even if he does give to a few, its your software being used by more people and thats an advantage to you.