27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
8:21 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 12:37 AM, Daniel Schmitt <pnambic(a)unu.nu> wrote:
On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek
<mlf.conv(a)gmail.com> wrote:
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
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. 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