Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > "Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: > [...] >> license that disallows charging a fee for copying is not free in any >> sense of the word. > > How come that the GNU GPL, which prohibits charging a fee *for copying* > (see "no charge"), is considered "free" by GNUtians?
Oh, the alternate Terekhov universe again. In mine, the GPL reads: (clause 1) You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. What you are referring to is: 2b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License. The "no charge" clause is for _licensing_, not for _copying_. You may _not_ hand somebody a copy for whatever price and tell him "and if you pay me $50 more, I'll license this copy under the GPL to you". -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss