Re: comparison of public licenses?

On Mon, 31 Jan 2000, Stephen B. Schott <sschott[_at_]sglm.com> wrote:
>
> Not really -- you can sell copies of the copyright holder's work
> for a fee, but modified copies must be distributed for no charge.
> Richard Stallman explains this well in his article at:
> <http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/stallman.html>: "For
> an effective copyleft, modified versions must also be free." That is
> precisely what the clause you quoted says -- modified programs must
> be distributed freely under the terms of the license.

When Stallman uses the word "free" in reference to software, he's generally not talking about "no-charge". Perhaps your thinking has been polluted by the practices of proprietary software publishers. When you buy a CD full of GPL'ed software, you're really buying the copy, not a license. I can charge as much as I like for those copies. What I can't do is charge for the license to the copyright (GPL) that comes with it.

If there's any confusion, we call always email RMS.

Lynn

Lynn Winebarger
<owinebar[_at_]free-expression.org> Received on Mon Jan 31 2000 - 14:24:29 GMT