[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Mon, 27 Nov 2006 10:57:46 +0000 paul sutton <zleap@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/2010-10878_11-6137894.html?tag=nl.e019t > > Should be of interst to the group, I still think it's confusing free as > in free beer with free as in freedom but in light of the result thats > just a side issue. > > paul The plaintiff was legally wrong too: 1. You can sell GPL software for money - it's just that once bought, it can be offered for free by someone else: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney 2. You can also charge per download, but again, it probably won't last long. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowDownloadFee In those two cases, the licence *allows* what the plaintiff said it does not - it's just that in practical terms, what is allowed is also self-defeating. The plaintiff also got this wrong: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#HeardOtherLicense Provided all copyright holders agree, a GPL program can be dual licenced as proprietary and GPL - the GPL version will remain GPL whatever happens so in practical terms, what you tend to get is a fork. But still, the GPL specifically allows this. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpq6Xv5vOvNe.pgp
Description: PGP signature
-- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html