Hear me out on this. The very concept of Libre, in abstract and in software, includes the free ability to distribute, copy, modify, etc. This is true of Libre 3D models, FLOSS hardware, and the like. This implies that it’s only Libre if it’s also gratis, otherwise you create an economy of inequity, with one person paying for it, and the rest getting it from them for free.
It’s generally OK to charge someone for labor, but the FSF and GNU project actively encouraging users to sell Libre products at as high a markup as they can get away with (“Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.” From the GNU project https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.en.html) is just shilling for capitalism in a broken world.
Obviously this is in the context of currency, the economies of effort, thought, and exchange are more complex.
How is that selling and not requesting donation? Encouraging the sale of a product inherently puts limits on the product, even if it’s also offered for free.
For instance: having a product that claims to be FLOSS, and then releasing code that is difficult to compile without proprietary libraries or impossible to compile on certain platforms, and then selling the precompiled binary at a markup. How is that OK? How is that not seen as gatekeeping the product? How is that not putting a barrier to the product that is antithetical to the Libre manifesto? (Specifically the taking of creative work and turning the work over to profiteers)?
deleted by creator
The FSF endorses Fritzing, which does exactly what I was saying, as an example.
deleted by creator