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

Hallo,
Marek hat gesagt: // Marek wrote:

> 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.

How do you sell software without distributing a copy of it as well? At
least I would never buy something unless I also get something. (And if
I don't get a piece of software, the GPL is not involved anyway. The
police would be, as this could be a fraud.) As the GPL doesn't say a
single word about how the fee for distribution should be calculated,
in fact it is up to the distributor to specify the price. The GPL
doesn't restrict the fee at all.

Example: Say putting something online for download takes me 15
minutes. My time is precious. I charge by the hour. I'm an expert and
guarantee the highest quality. My hourly fee is 60,000 Euro. That
makes 15,000 Euro to prepare the physical act of distributing one
copy. Plus taxes.

(Note that I include downloading software as one way of physically
distributing software, even when no atoms are transferred.
Distribution by download are the norm today, even for non-free,
commercial software. Making a difference between FedEx-distribution
and downloads would be artifical.)

But what the GPL disallows is that a distributor puts any additional
restrictions on third party distributors who bought from him. So I can
buy Linux for a ridiculously high price, but the guy I bought it from
is not allowed to forbid that I put my expensive copy on a website for
free download nor that I sell it there for an even higher price -
remember, my hourly rate is 60,000 Euro.

GPL v3 clarified this interpretation: Whereas in v2 the GPL states:
"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy
...", v3 made the implication I mentioned and its intention explicit:
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey
...". Note the "any" here.

Ciao

-- 
 Frank Barknecht                                     _ ______footils.org__
_______________________________________________
Linux-audio-dev mailing list
Linux-audio-dev@email-addr-hidden
http://lists.linuxaudio.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-audio-dev