On Sun, 2004-04-11 at 16:12, Simon Jenkins wrote: > Marek Peteraj wrote: > > >Suppose you view a webpage which says: > >SoftwareX for $30 -> buy/download > > > >How will you know if it's GPL or proprietary? > > > I won't unless they tell me. But I don't normally spend $30 without > finding out what it is I'm buying first.
Frankly, how does that answer the question? :) > > >Again, the GPL states that "you may charge a fee for the physical act of > >transferring a copy", so you're not charging for the *copy* itself. > >You're not paying for sw, you're paying for the service of providing the > >sw. > > > That's from section 1, conncerning source transfer. There's no such > restriction > in section 3 concerning object/executeable transfer. "under the terms of Section 1,2", but i'm repeating myself here. > See FAQ "Does the GPL > allow me to sell copies of the program for money?" > > "Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies > <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html> is part of the > definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is > no limit on > what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written > offer to > provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)" Pretty much what i said in my first post in this thread. But read again:"you may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy". Pretty much different from "you may charge for a copy" IMNSVHO. > > >Now suppose you're viewing a page that says: > >Enter your product serial number and d/l SoftwareX. > > > >If this case is ok with respect to the GPL, does it really matter if the > >GPL is shipped with the software at all? > > > Yes it matters. In this case?? > >The GPL doesn't allow you explicitly to restrict distribution in any > >case. As the nature of GPL - 'general public' implies, you just can't > >restrict if you choose to. > > > Its *re*distribution you can't restrict. > You can restrict your own > distribution > of object/executeable as much as you like, OK, now explain exactly how the *GPL* *allows* it. > > You have to have a legitimate reason to do > >that. Offering services described above for a fee is one such reason. > > > "Because I don't want to" is a legitimate reason not to distribute the > executeable to someone. You can't be serious :)) It's like saying "Because i don't want to is a legitimate reason to not comply with whatever" > >>If I give > >>them a written offer of source code instead then _some_ third parties > >>may also > >>be entitled to the written offer > >> > >> > > > >_some_ means not _any_: could you specify those entitled and those not? > > > What, *again*? OK then. > > If you distribute an executeable and provide a written offer of source > (section > 3b) then your distributees may pass along the written offer to third parties > (section 3c). Well, seemed to me like you were talking about certain third parites, but it's still about 'any third party'. Marek
