> Not true. I must disagree.
> also note III.3: "You are not obligated to comply with Subsection > III.1.d if Your Product is not distributed (i.e., Your > Product is available only to You)." That section is irrelevant to the point I'm discussing because I'm discussing situations where the program *is* being distributed. Whether you go with III.d, which says the program must be distributed without charge that make it non-free for the reasons I mentioned or whether you go with the later section that you must "include information (valid and correct at least until You cease to distribute Your Product) about where the complete source code of Your Product can be obtained free of charge" also goes against the part of the Free Software Definition I mentioned about commercial use. Even the part to charge a "reasonable" fee goes against it, because you must be free to charge a price any price you want for a program, even a price that is completely unreasonable. In addition to the FSF's Free Software Definition, you should also read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html. >From how I'm reading it, this second section about charging a "reasonable" fee even only applies if you put it for free on your website (reference "...and, if there is a web site officially associated with Your Product, You include the aforementioned information about the source code on a freely and publicly accessible web page to which such web site links via an easily viewable hyperlink (at least until You cease to distribute Your Product)." So the the complete source code of Your Product must be freely and publicly available at all time, really. That's really summarized by the sentence at the start of III.d. So it really isn't a free software license.
