Re: GPL and "free" software

[Robert Dewar <robert_dewar@my-dejanews.com>]

In article <gi71g7.gj.ln@joey>,
  <spblunt@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
> Well B has done nothing wrong in selling C the software.
> Neither party can
> really sue B because B hasn't broken the licence (unless
> they refuse to
> give C the source code upon request).
>
> B can charge as much as they like for the software, and
> they are under no
> obligation to tell C that it can be obtained gratis
> elsewhere.

The question of gratis has nothing to do with this at all,
it is a red herring. The GPL is about freedoms the
recipient has, it is nothing to do with the cost of the
software, so let's drop that confusion right away.

B is most DEFINITELY under the obligation to tell C that
this software is distributed under the GPL. As long as
this is done, there is no problem at all.

I understood the problem as posed to suppose that B did
NOT tell C that this was GPL'ed and that is of course
a clear copyright violation, since B has copied the
software under conditions not allowed by the license.

The GPL has nothing to say about costs.

For example, It is just fine to pick up the GNAT sources
put them on a convenient CD ROM, and charge money for the
CD. Several companies have done that, including most
recently Addison-Wesley, in conjunction with Michael
Feldman's new book.

As far as we are concerned, this is great! We encourage it
and work with the companies that do this. Anything that
helps GNAT distribution is a good thing for the Ada
community.

Now of course if someone tries to sell you a copy of
GNAT 3.11p for $100,000, they are trying to rip you off.
We hope you know enough to refuse, but it is nothing to
do with us in a legal sense -- we will most certainly
try to warn the buyer if we hear about it :-)



-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/       Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own