27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
6:41 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 10:44 PM, Daniel Schmitt
<myloginislongerthanyours(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)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).
But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL:
"...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a
fee..."
"... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..."
1. Basically "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
copy..." translates to "You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy..." as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for the
computer program or any other services related to it other than distribution and providing
warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the GPL would be *invalid*.
This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to get it directly
from the gnu's mouth, so to speak.
As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around a piece of
GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source, including any modifications
they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost.
Nope. If the software represents a substantial part of the hw based
product, you are not charging for distribution of the software, you
are charging for the entire *product * which would be useless without
the software. If there are software *alternatives* that are easily
installable on your hardware and you chose to prefer one of them, then
you're only distributing the sw along with the hw you are selling.
The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional terms beyond the
GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the GPL. These are undisputed facts.
Undisputed facts? :) Search for "we believe" in ->
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html
The one mildly interesting question is whether this state of affairs makes LS non-free;
reinterpreting a license it doesn't even use is not going to clarify that.
It's free for users to study, modify the code and run the code for
any purpose, to distribute it to others, whether modified or not.
And see the coincidence, these rules apply to LinuxSampler whether
with or without exception.
GPL is not public domain, it's not charity for midsize or big companies.
In general, the GPL enforces third parties to *give back*. If you
can't give back code, you can give back money(the only exception
being, you're encouraged to distribute, for that sake you can earn a
few bucks if you're able to).
Marek