Subject: Re: [linux-audio-dev] [OT] Linux, audio and the breach of GPL
From: Marek Peteraj (marpet_AT_naex.sk)
Date: Sun Apr 11 2004 - 19:00:24 EEST
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Sun Apr 11 2004 - 16:53:03 EEST