In context of GNU and FSF, when we say free software, we always mean free software with the basic freedoms
Freedom 0: The freedom to use the program for any purpose.
Freedom 1: The freedom to study how the program works, and change it to make it do what you wish.
Freedom 2: The freedom to redistribute and make copies so you can help your neighbor.
Freedom 3: The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements (and modified versions in general) to the public, so that the whole community benefits.
If you do price segmentation and prohibit billion (trillion?) dollar companies such as Amazon.com from using it, it is no longer free software
Sure, but that zero-dollar copy comes with no guarantees from the person passing it around. You could, as a billion dollar company, provide the software freely but offer additional warranties and support for a licensing cost. This was and is a really common business model for companies that package Free Software for pay.
If you’re going to throw the commandments of software freedom at someone to make your point you do not get to exclude exactly the part that explicitly contradicts what you say with a dismissive “except that, that doesn’t count” because it doesn’t fit your ideas.
A license that gives freedom but not gratuity fits the rules you quoted. The general topic is far from an open and shut case so I’m happy to debate arguments with you, but not the lazy, disingenuous way.
I am talking about the 4 rules posted by GP above [0] from FSF’s definition of free software, after selectively removing the part that wasn’t aligned with their point, then calling that part “moot”. I was not talking about the content of the article. The comment thread starting at the link below will provide all the context.
