Alexander Terekhov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > [...] >> So there are even business models around the GPL. > > LOL. > > http://www.softwarefreedom.org/news/2008/jun/10/busybox/bell-complaint.pdf > > "Thus, if a licensee redistributes a version of BusyBox, it may do so > only under the terms of the > License." > > only *only* *ONLY*
What about "a licensee" did you not understand? The author himself (as in the multiple-license example I gave) is certainly not bound by the license. Anyway, the terms of the license do not even demand that a licensee do not distribute for profit. They just stipulate that whatever you distribute, has to be _licensed_ under the GPL at no _additional_ cost. So there are even business models for redistributors. They have to be competitive at their redistribution business, and every recipient is a potential competitor. That makes it a market with tight margins, but tight is not the same as negative. Anyway, you are rather stupid for cutting out an actual example, replace it with LOL and quote something utterly unrelated. But then it is not like you don't do that all the time. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
