Hi, On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:57:27AM +0100, Marek wrote: > On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 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. > > ?
When I pay $5 for a CD with software, it is not obvious to me whether I am paying for distribution or paying for the software itself. Thus, from the purchaser's perspective, the two are indistinguishable. This makes it difficult, if not impossible, to place restrictions on what compensation is allowed. >> 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. I'm saying that the FSF is well aware of the implications of their license (that users can pay for GPL software), and is not simply complicit. Rather, it would seem that the FSF is not opposed to the selling of GPL software. >>>> 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? If you know someone that wants to pay you, that is certainly his right to do so. I'm simply trying to understand your motivation for championing a very unorthodox interpretation of the GPL. Specifically, it is not clear to me who, if anyone, would benefit from your interpretation. It seems like everyone would lose: users have fewer freedoms to use the software (they can't sell it), and developers get less commercial interest in their software. Is that not a problem? -Forest -- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
