27 Jan
2008
27 Jan
'08
10:04 p.m.
On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek <mlf.conv(a)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
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").
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?
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.