John Hasler wrote: > > Ferd Burfel writes: > > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't > > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no > > charge) and turn around and make a commerical product out of it. > > Yes it does. What it does not allow is a _closed source_ product.
http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt ------ Q: The GPL allows charging fees for binaries, only source code must be available under the GPL at no charge. So what's the problem? A: You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions" that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex. 27 2, 3; Ex. 26 2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty protection). (Ex. 27 1; Ex. 26 1.) If modified works or machine- readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-licensed software are distributed, they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License." (Ex. 27 2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26 2; see also Ex. 27 3; Ex. 26 4.)" --- REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw). ------ regards, alexander. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
