27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
10:40 p.m.
Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote:
I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that
users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would
seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software.
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
If you know someone that wants to pay you, that is certainly his right to do so.
I'm simply trying to understand your motivation for championing a very
unorthodox interpretation of the GPL. Specifically, it is not clear to me who,
if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation. It seems like everyone would
lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it), and
developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a
problem?
-Forest
--
Forest Bond
http://www.alittletooquiet.net
On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am
paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the
purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. This makes it
difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is
allowed.
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek
wrote:
? On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond
<forest(a)alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
>
> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about
this. They talk
about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice
with separate line items for software and distribution, the practical
distinction appears to be nil. I suspect this
is intentional, especially given the FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
I'm sorry, I don't understand. > Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work?
What is your interest in
> this?
No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use
and appropriate
compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
money, for the original copyright holders.
You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective
rights? That sounds difficult.
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent?