Re: Linux Fonts
On Mon, Jul 08, 2002 at 08:09:06PM +0200, Erich Schubert wrote:
> > example, I doubt they could sell a non-GPLed font derived from a GPLed one,
> > but they could certainly distribute a GPLed font with OS X.
>
> Distribute, yes, and modify also, but they cannot disallow the
> redistribution and copying of that font, as they do not own it.
> (so it was not sold, only licenced?)
A copy was sold. The buyer can do with that copy what they want,
but the right to make more copies is governed by copyright law and
the GPL.
There are two separate things here, which you should keep separate:
sale of copies, and sale of rights. When "selling" is used by itself,
it usually refers to sale of copies. Sale of rights is generally
called licensing. If you turn those terms around, you will confuse
many people.
Consider how it goes with books: when you buy a book, what do you get?
One book. If you want to print and distribute lots of books, you have
to get a _license_ for that from the copyright holder.
You seem to be using "disallow the redistribution and copying" as part
of your definition of "sellable". That's more than confusing, it
strengthens the incorrect notion that free software cannot be sold.
Richard Braakman
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: