So, you mean to say there is some hidden agenda, to always somehow monetize this FOSS, by offering add-on services such as maintenance/support or anything else, that would benefit the developer indirectly, by making the software free.
The term “free” is used in the sense of “free speech,” not of "free of charge.
_nithin says everything is free, all you gotta do is give credit to the original developer, not pay anything for it. But you/ the above quote, make it sound like, it is not free entirely, and somehow, something needs to be paid to obtain it, either directly or indirectly.
So is it safe to say that, it is the intent that determines if something is actually free or not.
i.e., If the developer’s intent is to just share what he has created, with the rest of the world, with no hidden agenda, and with no ways to indirectly benefit from making it free and open-source, then we can call it truly free of any charge or payment.
Edit:
This reminds me of the printer mafia
The “printer mafia” is a humorous way to highlight the alleged practices of some printer companies in using a combination of product design and sales tactics to ensure continued ink purchases often at steep prices, even if the initial printer purchase was inexpensive.
“Free” can mean different things in different contexts.
What i have been trying to clarify is what FOSS means.
(specifically FOSS does not mean free of monetary cost, among other things)
Anyone interested in FOSS will be best served reading through the couple of links earlier in this thread.
No.
My comments above about monetising FOSS
were specifically in reponse to queries about monetary costs and FOSS.
It is not necessary that there is any intent to monetise something, behind releasing something as FOSS.
However, if an increasingly capitalistic world,
there usually is some intent to monetise,
just like with everything else in a capitalistic world.
(not something specific to FOSS)
What i am trying to emphasise is that FOSS and charging for software are orthogonal.
The “Free” in FOSS is not about gratis, but about freedom to obtain and modify the software.
FOSS doesn’t require any of the following to be gratis -
being able to compile/run/host/deploy/debug/maintain/extend/enhance the software.
The users can
a. pay the author for this,
b. or do these themselves,
c. or pay anyone else who is offering to do it for them.
the latter 2 options are usually not possible in case of proprietary / non-FOSS software.