Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the content.
> > Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having assignment of the
> > copyright. This allows them to change the license so that they can make
> > a productized version.
>
> Since this is not the first time this mistruth show up in the discussion
> here, I think a clarification is warranted.
it is NOT a mistruth. Maybe I should have said, "you are not really selling
*gpl binaries", but the meaning is the same. By the license, the source
and binaries are freely distrubutable, thus they have no monetary value.
So assuming the people in a commerical transaction don't give something
for nothing, the monies paid must be for cost of copying, media...
> The second paragraph of section 1 of the GPL (v.2) states:
>
> 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.
How I read that is that you can charge for the _service_ of copying, but you
are NOT charging for the content.
> The only limits that the GPL places on sales is that once someone has
> received a copy of binaries from you, you can't sell them the SOURCE at an
> additional cost that's higher than your distribution cost. Up to that
> point, you can charge people whatever you want to for access to GPLed
^^^^^^^^^^
> *content*. You just don't have any power to make sure that others don't
> sell that same content at a price lower than yours, or even give it away.
no disagreement here. But nothing you said so far contradicts what I have
said.
> And although the LGPL is a different license (which is important to keep
> in mind when talking about '*gpl'), the same permission is granted by the
> LGPL to charge a fee (an arbitrary fee) for copies of the software.
you are confusing the what was said. I did NOT say "you can't charge for
GPLed stuff; they must be distributed free". What I said was "you can't
charge for the *gpled binaries" because by the license, by section 1,
the receiver can make as many copies as s/he wants (providing it falls
within the *GPL). The by-product of all this is that the *GPL makes
content "zero cost", thus you can only make money by focusing on something
other than content.
Another way to look at it is like getting a can of compressed air. Do
you think you are buying air, or do you think you are buying the process
the compressed, canned and distrubuted the air?
-r
