From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_20,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,1d8ab55e71d08f3d X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,1efdd369be089610 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: Isaac@yellow.submarine.pla (Isaac) Subject: Re: what DOES the GPL really say? Date: 1997/09/09 Message-ID: <5v2dhc$vjj@camel15.mindspring.com>#1/1 X-Deja-AN: 270887879 References: <5ph4g5$sbs$1@vixen.cso.uiuc.edu> <5uhe6s$g8q@taurus.ftl.telematics.com> <5uhjr4$i2o@idiom.com> <5uirfo$lt2@taurus.ftl.telematics.com> Organization: Yellow Brick Road Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,gnu.misc.discuss Date: 1997-09-09T00:00:00+00:00 List-Id: In article , Mark Wooding wrote: >The `cost of physically performing source distribution' sounds a good >deal less than `reasonable, where the only person who gets to complain >about reasonable is the copyright holder' to me. Perhaps this is just >me getting things wrong, but charging much more than media and postage >costs for a source distribution looks like a violation of the licence to >me. > I would think that they could charge for all of their costs in providing you the source including packaging, 'handling' etc. I don't think they are obligated to lose money getting you the source, they just can't make money. You might not be able to tell whether they are turning a profit getting you the source. To try to head off out of context replies, I'll reiterate that this discussion is about a distributor of gpl'd binaries who elects to ship source on request rather than with the product. Someone who ships binary with the product can charge as much as they can get. Isaac