On Jan 28, 2008 12:37 AM, Daniel Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for > > *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!). > > The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they > > are always talking about encouraging *distribution* > > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html: > > Quote: > > "--> Selling <-- Free Software > > > > Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you > > should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that > > you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the > > cost. > > > > Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to > > charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, > > please read on." > > > > Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there > > are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at > > all). > > > > > > If you had taken their advice and "read on", you would have discovered > that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further > down on the page. To quote: > > "The term "selling software" can be confusing too > > Strictly speaking, "selling" means trading goods for money. > Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage > it. > > However, when people think of "selling software", they usually > imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the > software proprietary rather than free. > > So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way > this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term > "selling software" and choose some other wording instead. > For example, you could say "distributing free software for a > fee"—that is unambiguous." > > So much for your wording claims.
Really? What they are trying to tell you is: If you take a piece of sw, and offer it to someone else for a fee and at the same time that someone else is able to get it from someone else for free legally, what is it that you're doing? I think the best word for describing it is - distributing? ;) Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE? Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you so you save a few bucks? So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ* and they use it as the name of their selling free software article, but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use "distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."? So much for your quote. Additionally, if you want real-world > examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, > legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ 1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? 2. Is their code a derived work? 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product? > > Is there anything left to discuss? No. Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list Linux-audio-dev@lists.linuxaudio.org http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev