I thought it was free as in speech not free as in beer? So if it costs a beer then isn’t it still free (as in speech)? Or is this a OSI vs FSF difference?
I was thinking the same thing, does anyone have any context as to why the Beer license is not considered free? If I’m to guess it probably has something to do with copyleft-restrictions (or lack thereof).
You’re allowed to charge before you give access to the software, but then can’t restrict the people you give it to giving it to more people. The beer licence sounds like those people would be on the hook for beer, too.
As someone else commented, it appears that the license isn’t free because when you share it the new person now owes the original author a beer if they ever meet them, so the middle person isn’t free to do whatever they like because of the ongoing obligation being forced on their users.
I thought it was free as in speech not free as in beer? So if it costs a beer then isn’t it still free (as in speech)? Or is this a OSI vs FSF difference?
I was thinking the same thing, does anyone have any context as to why the Beer license is not considered free? If I’m to guess it probably has something to do with copyleft-restrictions (or lack thereof).
You’re allowed to charge before you give access to the software, but then can’t restrict the people you give it to giving it to more people. The beer licence sounds like those people would be on the hook for beer, too.
Ah yes that makes sense.
According to the FSF, it’s only free if you tell people what they can do with it, but only very specific things
As someone else commented, it appears that the license isn’t free because when you share it the new person now owes the original author a beer if they ever meet them, so the middle person isn’t free to do whatever they like because of the ongoing obligation being forced on their users.