Re: Licensing question
On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Peter S Galbraith wrote:
> No it doesn't. The GPL says you can charge for the _service_
> (not only the media) and imposes no limitation on how much you may
> charge.
You may charge for everything ... as long as you provide source code.
Still amazes me that people still think that free software means software
at no charge. RMS started charging $150 a copy for emacs very early on and
the "official" GNU cdrom from fsf costs several hundred dollars.
An interesting use of the GPL:
You have a program that another company wants to use to provide a service.
Say it is some e-commerce software. They want it in the worst way and they
want the source but you are afraid they will re-sell the modified software
and take advantage of your hard work. So you sell them the binary for
$250,000 but license it under GPL. This means that if they EVER provide
ANYONE a binary, they also must provide the source code. This is a strong
deterrant that will likely prevent them from ever redistributing the
binary (to keep the source code under their control).
This takes advantage of the GPL in that the GPL does not require you to
provide source unless you provide the binary and it does not force you to
provide the binary at no cost. Commercial software can (and has been)
provided under GPL for no other reason than to PREVENT the distribution of
the binary by using the source requirement as a "poison pill". Just
because someone has a piece of GPL software does not mean that they are
obligated to provide you with the source if you did not PURCHASE the
binary.
Reply to: