Re: [LAD] [OT] LinuxSampler and GPL - some clarifications

On Jan 28, 2008 12:37 AM, Daniel Schmitt <pnambic@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2008 11:41 PM, Marek <mlf.conv@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> > Show me one example in GPLv2 which would tell me that i can charge for
> > *a copy*, not for *distributing a copy*(!).
> > The FSF clearly uses wrong wording (see my FedEx example) because they
> > are always talking about encouraging *distribution*
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html:
> > Quote:
> > "--> Selling <-- Free Software
> >
> > Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU project is that you
> > should not charge *money for distributing copies* of software, or that
> > you should charge as little as possible — just enough to cover the
> > cost.
> >
> > Actually we encourage people who *redistribute free software* to
> > charge as much as they wish or can. If this seems surprising to you,
> > please read on."
> >
> > Please note : Selling software != Distributing for charge and there
> > are *many* ways to sell software (even while not distributing it at
> > all).
> >
> >
>
> If you had taken their advice and "read on", you would have discovered
> that they contradict exactly that statement a few paragraphs further
> down on the page. To quote:
>
> "The term "selling software" can be confusing too
>
> Strictly speaking, "selling" means trading goods for money.
> Selling a copy of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage
> it.
>
> However, when people think of "selling software", they usually
> imagine doing it the way most companies do it: making the
> software proprietary rather than free.
>
> So unless you're going to draw distinctions carefully, the way
> this article does, we suggest it is better to avoid using the term
> "selling software" and choose some other wording instead.
> For example, you could say "distributing free software for a
> fee"—that is unambiguous."
>
> So much for your wording claims.

Really? What they are trying to tell you is:
If you take a piece of sw, and offer it to someone else for a fee and
at the same time that someone else is able to get it from someone else
for free legally, what is it that you're doing? I think the best word
for describing it is - distributing? ;)
Hence - unambigious? You're NOT SELLING the software because it's FREE?
Like getting your goods via FedEx or let someone else fetch it for you
so you save a few bucks?

So it doesn't contradict my claim, and in *fact* they contradict
themselves *because* they use the wording "sell copies" *in the FAQ*
and they use it as the name of their selling free software article,
but at the same time they tell you that you'd better use
"distributing free software for a fee" which is "unambiguous."?

So much for your quote.

Additionally, if you want real-world
> examples of hardware devices being sold with GPLed software in them,
> legally, check http://www.linksys.com/gpl/

1. Who is the copyright holder in their case?
2. Is their code a derived work?
3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product?

>
> Is there anything left to discuss?

No.

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 04:15:08 2008