The Windows installer of ImageMagick will no longer be signed

It’s true that academic projects begin like that, too, but if you want to turn them into businesses you have to think about business aspects. Google for example, with ads: that started as an academic project.

Regarding your point about meanings, the more common English usage of the quoted phrase is to signify the meaning: “creation had zero cost”, as indicated by your Google search.

In English, the more common way to convey the meaning “a product with zero price”, is, “It’s free”.

To conclude, while it seems your point is that I misunderstand the meaning and therefore my dispute is invalid, it also seems true that it is your interpretation which goes against the common usage. Could you be be deliberately misinterpreting simply to create a disagreement, or is it accidental?

In any case, it’s hard to argue that it's my point which is invalid. Instead, it looks as if your attempt to discredit my point by misrepresenting its meaning is the only invalid thing here.

Restricting the meaning of the word "free" to one defined by "FS" orthodoxy, is very not free, wouldn't you agree? Haha :)

Indeed the word free has many meanings, and consequently care must be taken to avoid confusion. Defining free in a way that only aligns with a particular ideology may be seen as self-serving, or confusing and deceptive. It's important to avoid such biases in order to clearly examine the real issues.

It's understandable, given the dependency of big business on price-free software, that business would not want the "price-free" nature of much software to change. A "price awakening" among creators would directly threaten the bottom lines of these companies. Unfortunately, it seems they are also abusing the ideology of "FS" to create confusing false notions of a "noble software creators who gives away their creations without extracting any money". This is abusive, and exploitative, and it must stop. The way it will stop will be creators waking up. The way they will wake up will be thinking clearly, not simply subjugating themselves to, or repeating, misapplications of "FS" ideology.

Specifically, my commentary here seeks to expose the costs that occur throughout the lifecycle of software creation, and avoid the confusing false equivalences with "FS" ideology. It is by hiding or ignoring those costs that exploitation of creators is permitted to flourish. Training creators to think in ways that do not account costs to their time, or to their creations, or, that make it unacceptable to do so, is abusive. It's a gaslighting mindset that seeks to prevent creators from capturing the value they have a right to.

It's important to avoid deliberately misusing the idealism of a "FS" movement to suggest money should not be exchanged, as this is abusive to creators.

Deliberate blurring of meanings, and the creation of false equivalences and reductions, is deceptive tactic is designed to confuse in order to prevent clear understanding of the issues. This in turn can hamper people asserting their right. In this context, the ideology of the "FS" movement, is often used to create a confusing equivalence with price-free. This in turn suggests there virtue in not requesting payment for software. Overall, this abuse of "FS" ideology is done in order to continue to exploit creators.

In short, the very ideology of freedom you tout is abused as to restrict creators, and oppress their right to financial self-determination. And the "FS" movement is misused in this way to create an ideological fake justification for not capturing value from software. It's important to not participate in the perpetuation of such harmful lies and misuses of principles.

While the ideologies of free software are commendable, they must not be used to repress the freedom of creators to earn from their creations, as is attempted to be done with the line of argument espoused in your comment.

It can be difficult to see people earning from their creations, and it's understandable to have fear that you will not be able to afford software if this idea of charging for it spreads. However, it's important to understand that the current situation is abusive and must be terminated. Exploitation is not sustainable, and the software economy must respect the rights of all participants in order to be just.

I challenge folks to advocate for a more positive and inclusive stance on this issue, that supports creators and clear thinking about the issues involved! :) Dispelling muddy thinking must be a top priority of anyone who aligns with that, and to that end, I encourage you all to re-evaluate your injection of "FS" points into these moments. :)

> There's a better way to see this: once can make a statement about the principle of the necessity of having transactions to exchange value, but not have a particular demand for the offered good or service themselves. I think that's what's going on here...

You may think that's what's going on here, but I believe it's the opposite. Everyone involved has concluded that there is not enough value to the process of signing the installer. Those that concluded this are probably quite similar to you and me (except maybe that they know _more_ about the work and payoff involved) so if you ask yourself why _you_ wouldn't do it, you probably will know why others choose not to as well.

Anyone who thinks this really is important is free to devote time and money to making it happen. Pointing out that it's worthy of doing to people involved in the project who have decided it's not worth doing isn't that helpful really. Better is to do some self-reflection and ask yourself why you might be wrong in your belief that it is a worthy endeavor considering those in the know have concluded the opposite.

Regardless, I don't really see how it's a gotcha question or whatever.