Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Barry Margolin wrote: >> >> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, >> Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> > Barry Margolin wrote: >> > [...] >> > > And in the GNU and Linux newsgroups, the context establishes >> > > that "free software" refers to freedom, >> > >> > And "freedom" as in what, Barry? >> >> Liberty, rights, etc. From the preamble of the GPL: > > Do you consider paying taxes being a threat to your liberty, Barry? > >> >> When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not >> price. > > That's just GPL-moronizing blah-blah. Refer to whatever you want. The > terms matter, not preamble blah-blah. > >> Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that >> you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and >> charge for this service if you wish), > > That's "first sale" (as codified in 17 USC 109) which covers copies > (material objects in which works are fixed) "lawfully made".
But there is no law which would permit you to create copies for the purpose of redistribution. > No license is needed (apart from rental and lease). The right is > statutory default. Go ahead and create copies of Microsoft Windows and sell them. Good luck, you'll need it. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
