It's clear that people in this thread do not understand what "Free Software" is, and what it isn't.

Let's recall the classic analogy of rms: "Free as in Beer" and "Free as in Speech".

"Free Software" and its cousins, F/OSS, and Creative Commons, are "Free as in Speech" (in Spanish: libre).

This freedom often means it is provided free of charge. But it does not require it. Free software may cost money. In fact, we now often pay for free software, because it's incorporated in our routers, our smartphones, our smart home devices, our IoT things. SaaS is replete with free software under the hood, yet we pay for subscriptions and access and all kinds of costly things that incur fees. Free software is ubiquitous and often costs $$$ just to distribute it. Ask anyone who subscribes to Red Hat Enterprise Linux.

Please stop with your stupid analogies comparing a "free car" to Free Software. They aren't the same thing by any means. If I serve you "Free Beer" all night, and you don't get drunk, that has nothing to do with Free Software or Free Speech: capice?

You're confused.

Do you know what you pay for when you pay Red Hat? Exactly the kind of guarantees people seem to expect from free software. You're not paying for the software, you're paying for the contractual support relationship. If you're updating your RHEL server through the channels you are paying for, you'd absolutely be able to sue Red Hat if they were distributing compromised software.

The cost matters. No one's taking on legal liability free of charge.

You can't expect any guarantees of fitness for purpose, safety or whatever if you're getting something for free. The moment you pay though, things change and licenses can't absolve you from everything.

give me free robux