On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote: > > On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The FSF's position is clearly stated here: > > > > > > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney > > > The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk > > about charging for distribution of sw. > > True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice > with > separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction > appears to be nil.
? > I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's > repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication. I'm sorry, I don't understand. > > >> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in > >> this? > > > No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate > > compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or > > money, for the original copyright holders. > > You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective > rights? > That sounds difficult. > > Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free > software developers to you currently represent? What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this? Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
