On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE? > Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you > so you save a few bucks? > > So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict > themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ* > and they use it as the name of their selling free software article, > but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use > "distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."?
Which part of "selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we encourage it" is causing you difficulties? The paragraph I quoted is trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the situation. > Additionally, if you want real-world > > examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them, > > legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/ > > 1. Who is the copyright holder in their case? In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph of http://www.busybox.net/license.html ("A Good Example"). > 2. Is their code a derived work? It is customized for their hardware, yes. > 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product? By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment - routers and the like - not general-purpose computers. Have fun, Daniel. _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
