On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Aaron Trevena wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, Matthew Byng-Maddick wrote:
> > On Tue, 10 Apr 2001, dcross - David Cross wrote:
> > [broken quoting snipped]
> > > You want the GPL for that. Which means that you can't use my copyright
> > > message as it includes the Artisitc License - which doesn't disallow your
> > > point 2.
> > The GPL doesn't stop you selling the derived work. What it *does* do,
> > however is to say that the derived work must be under a GPL-compatible
> > license, which makes it, in general, uneconomical to sell the work.
> The common mis-perception about the GPL is that you can't sell or profit
> from selling GPL software.
Erm. Why don't you quote my message and repeat what it says... :)
> You can sell at any price you like, the software with or without nice
> pakcaging and manuals, you can sell the support at any price you like and
> you can sell the manuals at any price you like. All you have to do is
> publish it under the GPL and make the source available at cost price or
> reasonabley close.
No. You cannot sell the source and binaries seperately. The point is that
anyone having bought your code/binaries is free to do what they like,
including giving to all their friends, so it is uneconomical to *sell*
stuff under the GPL.
This is why it's *effectively* free-beer free. RMS used to sell the tapes
for the EMACS shell^Wtext-editor at way more than cost price of the tapes,
and people still bought them. They could have got a copy from someone who
already had the tapes or from somewhere else, but they *chose* to have the
tapes.
MBM
--
Matthew Byng-Maddick Home: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 20 8980 5714 (Home)
http://colondot.net/ Work: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> +44 7956 613942 (Mobile)
standards n.: The principles upon which we reject other people's code.
