From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Apr 10 11:04:53 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2D9516A4CE for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rwcrmhc11.comcast.net (rwcrmhc11.comcast.net [204.127.198.35]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DD8743D1F for ; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:53 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: from localhost.localdomain (c-24-17-47-224.client.comcast.net[24.17.47.224]) by comcast.net (rwcrmhc11) with ESMTP id <2004041018045201300ss9oae>; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:04:53 +0000 Received: from localhost.localdomain (localhost [127.0.0.1]) i3AI4qh1066244; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:54 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) Received: (from jojo@localhost) by localhost.localdomain (8.12.11/8.12.11/Submit) id i3AI4kA2066243; Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:46 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from underway@comcast.net) To: "Paul A. Hoadley" References: <20040410074515.GS85168@grover.logicsquad.net> <20040410084629.GB8301@happy-idiot-talk.infracaninophile.co.uk> <20040410102653.GA92584@grover.logicsquad.net> From: underway@comcast.net (Gary W. Swearingen) Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 11:04:46 -0700 In-Reply-To: <20040410102653.GA92584@grover.logicsquad.net> (Paul A. Hoadley's message of "Sat, 10 Apr 2004 19:56:53 +0930") Message-ID: User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) XEmacs/21.4 (Reasonable Discussion, berkeley-unix) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL: implications for FreeBSD-on-hardware for sale? X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Apr 2004 18:04:53 -0000 "Paul A. Hoadley" writes: > On Sat, Apr 10, 2004 at 09:46:29AM +0100, Matthew Seaman wrote: > >> There's no problem with selling GPL'd programs for money. As the >> cant goes "Free speech, not free beer". We all use loose language like that, but a "software seller" should keep in mind that usually he's really doing two things: publishing (or at least distributing) copies of the software and licensing use of the software. The GPL seems to permit charging anything for the publishing (but see clause 3b for an exception) while prohibiting any charge for the licensing (but see the clauses which require fees in the form of cross-licensing some derivative works). I have no idea how it's legally permissible to say that your one "bundle" price only applies to the publishing and not the licensing, but I've never heard that any publishers or licensors worry about it. Also remember that not only the chunks of software like "readline" carry licensed and sub-licensable copyrights, but that your arrangment of the chunks as the collection that you publish (your product) is copyrightable, and a careful buyer will want a license for that too, which must (per the GPL) be compatible with the GPL. (The GPL does, of course, allow distribution with closed-source software. I think the GPL's "further restrictions" clause should be a problem here, but I'm not aware that any GPL licensor has complained about any "further restrictions" in such kinds of GPL derivatives as your product will be.) > Would it be arguable that I was, in fact, selling only the > hardware and my own software application, and giving away the (GPL- > and BSD-licensed) open source software for free? I'll have to refer you to a lawyer. Maybe it depends upon what the sales contract says. Maybe not. Or maybe if you have no right to sell licenses for a fee, then it's implied that you're not selling it. But it's easy to get too wrapped up in worrying about technicalities that most people seem happy to ignore. Good question; I've not seen this bundling issued discussed before.