On Jan 28, 2008 11:40 AM, Frank Barknecht <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hallo, > Marek hat gesagt: // Marek wrote: > > > 2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the FSF chose > > "distributing for fee". Everytime someone restricts others to download > > free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a > > little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere > > else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep > > your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person > > in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy > > not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes > > the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he > > distributes. > > How do you sell software without distributing a copy of it as well?
Here's one definition of distribute:To divide among several or many; to deal out; to apportion; to allot. Let' have an example: If i take ardour, throw out everything GUI related plus a couple of other things, make some modifications in order to make it work with a custom front panel with a couple of hardware buttons, a couple of hardware sliders and a lcd panel in order to build a 16 track rack based recorder, and make the sources free, would call this distributing ardour? > As the GPL doesn't say a > single word about how the fee for distribution should be calculated, > in fact it is up to the distributor to specify the price. The GPL > doesn't restrict the fee at all. Who said something else? Marek _______________________________________________ Linux-audio-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
