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

[Daniel Schmitt]

On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek <mlf.conv at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 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."?

Which part of "selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we
encourage it" is causing you difficulties? The paragraph I quoted is
trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the
situation.

> 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?

In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel
team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about
their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph
of http://www.busybox.net/license.html ("A Good Example").

> 2. Is their code a derived work?

It is customized for their hardware, yes.

> 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product?

By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment -
routers and the like - not general-purpose computers.

Have fun,

Daniel.