I would like to start this off with a few general remarks about open source software. It must be noted that
there is a clear and distinct separation (which is often not perceived, or understood) between “freeware” and
“open source software” referred to hereafter as OSS.

This distinction may be characterized in the form of two metaphors:

1.)The gratis metaphor, this is where the term “free beer”, or “free as in beer” comes from. It essentially
relates to the monetary costs set by the developer in order to gain access to the software in this context, the
cost is zero. This is the metaphor which people usually associate with OSS and “freeware” in the process the
critical distinction of the next metaphor is confused with the gratis metaphor for OSS.

The take away is:
Free beer simply means there is no charge in order to use the software. No other rights, or
responsibilities are conveyed with the “free beer” metaphor, and in fact most if not all rights remain
reserved. Freeware is “free beer” and nothing more.

2.) The libre metaphor, this pertains to freedom of expression "as in free speech" in the form of software
modification. This is one of the critical distinctions between “no or low cost software” and open source software.
You are free to modify open source software, you are free to redistribute open source software, you are free even,
to charge for access to open-source software. These freedoms come with one central rule which insists that you
cannot take away these freedoms in any manner in any of your redistributed software. So as you can see OSS
is a poor environment for prohibitively expensive software development or any exploitative revenue generation
models which rely on the software itself, this must be qualified with the existence of users who have the requisite
skills required to modify the code. Even open source software with all of its inherent freedoms is to an unskilled
users perspective, indistinguishable from proprietary software.

The take away is:
OSS is "Free as in free speech", this means that by choosing to use, and therefore participating in the use
and improvement of OSS, the user is NOT merely consuming the output of the developer. When a user participates
in OSS, they are actually involved in a two-way dialogue with the developer and other users of the software.
By its very nature, OSS is a social development model.

This doesn't sound very remarkable on the surface however if one grasps the implications of giving software
away without charge, one must then re-evaluate the producer-consumer model of software distribution which exists
in the commercial world. The GPL turns software consumers into potential producers by granting them the right
to modify or redistribute and even charge for such distribution of open-source software.


It is important to understand that the GPL, does not prevent developers from charging money for the ability
to acquire their software. What the GPL prevents, is the prohibition on software modification, and redistribution
which exist in proprietary software development models.

Nothing in the GPL (general public license) prohibits a software developer or distributor from charging
for access to open source software. In fact many OSS developers routinely release software free of charge even
though they are within their rights to charge for it (assuming the software has been released under the GPL).
What most developers do instead is charge a subscription fee which entitles the subscriber to technical support
of the software.

Since most users have only been exposed to proprietary software in their day-to-day computing experience they
make the assumption that all software is proprietary and flows in a one-way direction from the developer
to them. Most users who download open-source software, make the mistake of assuming it is “freeware” and
treating it as such, they respond to bugs in the software or feature requests much as consumers of a product would
respond to the producer, namely by demanding change.


The GPL is not the only open source license, there are many others and the free software foundation
(FSF), maintains a page of the relative compatibility or incompatibility of these open source licenses.

The aforementioned page can be accessed below:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html