On Jan 27, 2008 10:44 PM, Daniel Schmitt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jan 27, 2008 9:59 PM, Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > But let's have a look at these statements from the GPL: > > > > "...if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a > > fee..." > > "... You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy..." > > > > 1. Basically "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a > > copy..." translates to "You may *only* charge a fee for the physical act of > > transferring a copy..." as the GPL doesn't state that you may charge for > > the computer program or any other services related to it other than > > distribution and providing warranty. Otherwise such statement made by the > > GPL would be *invalid*. > > > This interpretation is at odds with the FSF's own interpretation. Check > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney to > get it directly from the gnu's mouth, so to speak.
Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!). The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they are always talking about encouraging *distribution* http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html: Quote: "--> Selling <-- Free Software Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the cost. Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you, please read on." Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at all). > > > > > As for the original topic: under the GPLv2, anyone can build hardware around > a piece of GPLed software as long as they offer to give the full source, > including any modifications they made, to anyone asking for it, at cost. Nope. If the software represents a substantial part of the hw based product, you are not charging for distribution of the software, you are charging for the entire *product * which would be useless without the software. If there are software *alternatives* that are easily installable on your hardware and you chose to prefer one of them, then you're only distributing the sw along with the hw you are selling. > > > > > The restrictions desired by the LS crew therefore do require additional terms > beyond the GPL, and the resulting license is not compatible with the GPL. > These are undisputed facts. Undisputed facts? :) Search for "we believe" in -> http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > > The one mildly interesting question is whether this state of affairs makes LS > non-free; reinterpreting a license it doesn't even use is not going to > clarify that. It's free for users to study, modify the code and run the code for any purpose, to distribute it to others, whether modified or not. And see the coincidence, these rules apply to LinuxSampler whether with or without exception. GPL is not public domain, it's not charity for midsize or big companies. In general, the GPL enforces third parties to *give back*. If you can't give back code, you can give back money(the only exception being, you're encouraged to distribute, for that sake you can earn a few bucks if you're able to). Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
