On Jan 28, 2008 3:04 AM, Daniel Schmitt <pnambic@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> On Jan 28, 2008 1:21 AM, Marek <mlf.conv@email-addr-hidden> wrote:
> >
> > 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."?
>
> Which part of "selling a copy of a free program is legitimate and we
> encourage it" is causing you difficulties?
1. there is a difference between the copyright holder and third
parties. For example, the copyright holder is allowed to sell his
software and in some case he doesn't even distribute it by selling it.
2. The FedEx example should demonstrate why the FSF chose
"distributing for fee". Everytime someone restricts others to download
free software in order to charge for it, he makes the software a
little bit less free. (Doesn't matter if you can get it somewhere
else, some people dont even know for example). So in order to keep
your software free from legal point of view, you say that the person
in question is charging for the physical act of transferring a copy
not for the software itself. In fact he is indeed doing so, he takes
the software from someone and offers to someone else for a fee, he
distributes.
> The paragraph I quoted is
> trying to guard against exactly your misunderstanding of the
> situation.
You haven't provided a single explanation as to why my claims
condratict the FSF claim, other than pasting a paragaph for which i
have already given an explanation.
Which leads me to think that you are not a lawyer and you're just
being arrogant.
>
> > 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?
>
> In most cases, Linus Torvalds and a cast of thousands, i.e. the kernel
> team. Also, the busybox people, who are well known for caring about
> their license a lot. See their comments on this in the last paragraph
> of http://www.busybox.net/license.html ("A Good Example").
It's just their less restrictive interpretation of the GPL to their
disadvantage.
If they call implementing busybox inside a router (or whatever
embedded device) distributing of their own software
then there is nothing i can do about it at the moment.
>
> > 2. Is their code a derived work?
>
> It is customized for their hardware, yes.
>
> > 3. Does the software represent a substantial part of the product?
>
> By your own earlier example, yes. This is networking equipment -
> routers and the like - not general-purpose computers.
>
> Have fun,
Well, then they clearly violate the GPL. And it wouldn't hurt Linksys
to pay for a separate license would it?
In order to fuel development of the software components they use in
their products?
Have fun. :)
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 08:15:02 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jan 28 2008 - 08:15:02 EET