27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
7:37 p.m.
On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 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).
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.