[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
So how come the lawyer did not pick this up, Hopefully the GPL 3 will make things a little clearer, When I read the article I thought something was odd with what was being discussed. We seem to have forks both ways, red hat -> redhat enterprise -> fedora. Neil Williams wrote: >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 interest 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/ > > > -- http://www.zleap.net -- 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