Hi,
On Mon, Jan 28, 2008 at 12:19:22AM +0100, Marek wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 12:07 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > The FSF's position is clearly stated here:
> >
> > http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
> The FSF uses bad wording, see my other mail about this. They talk
> about charging for distribution of sw.
True, but given that most commercial distributors do not deliver an invoice with
separate line items for software and distribution, the practical distinction
appears to be nil. I suspect this is intentional, especially given the FSF's
repeated use "bad wording" that is consistent with this implication.
>> Have you ever applied the GPL to your own work? What is your interest in
>> this?
> No, and as a lawyer i seek to strenghten fair use and appropriate
> compensation for the use of GPLed software, whether in form of code or
> money, for the original copyright holders.
You are interested in increasing both users' and developers' respective rights?
That sounds difficult.
Moreover, your goals sound odd for a lawyer without a client. What free
software developers to you currently represent? Is your practice based in the
US, Europe, or elsewhere?
-Forest
-- Forest Bond http://www.alittletooquiet.net
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 04:15:07 EET