[LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

[Daniel Schmitt]

On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek <mlf.conv at gmail.com> 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. Additionally, if you want real-world
examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them,
legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/

Is there anything left to discuss?

Daniel.