> do you want to make money from your product (rent) or from services around it. Rent is exactly how proprietary products make money.<p>I didn't get this at all.<p>If I have a free software product (GPLv3), and I require that you pay me $100 for me to send you a copy, how is that characterized as "rent"?<p>I looked at <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent</a> for guidance:<p>1) "Renting, an agreement where a payment is made for the temporary use of a good, service or property"<p>Since you have a copy under the GPLv3, which is effectively permanent, that's not really applicable.<p>(Also, proprietary software licenses can also be under a permanent license, so don't count as 'rent' under this definition.)<p>2) "Economic rent, any payment in excess of the cost of production"<p>That's a complicated definition that I didn't understand. I do see 'the total income is made up of economic profit (earned) plus economic rent (unearned).' So why is my commercial transaction for you to acquire GPLv3-licensed software from me 'unearned'?<p>That "cost of production" is not simply the labor+goods cost but includes opportunity cost. Which can be quite high when deciding to distribute free software instead of proprietary software. So I don't see how choosing to "sell free software" (as RMS describes it) is reasonably described as "rent".