"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote: [...] > a mistake, and a grave one at that to claim that non-free (or closed > source) software is the same as commercial software . Commercial > software can be either non-free software, free software, open source > software or even close source software. But it can also exclude > non-free software, open source software and close source software, > since all of those can be in some situations non-free software, which > might prohibit the act of distributing the program for a fee. Free > software never does this, it always guarantees the right to charge a > fee for a program.
Uff. Back to life. Go to clinic, ams. "65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex. 27 2, 3; Ex. 26 2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 1; Ex. 26 1.) If modified works or machine-readable versions of GPL- or LGPL- licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 2; see also Ex. 27 3; Ex. 26 4.)" REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw). regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
