On Jan 28, 2008 12:51 AM, Forest Bond <forest@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> 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.
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
>
> >> 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?
What does that matter? You mean someone should pay me for this?
Marek
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev
Received on Mon Jan 28 04:15:07 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 04:15:08 EET