IPL as a burden
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Jan 23 17:07:38 UTC 2001
Angelo Schneider wrote:
> Nope, taking fees is no problem either for open source nor for GPL.
> The problem is: you can not take fees from customer A and waive thme
> from customer B.
Sure you can. The FSF charges for the GNU CDs it distributes
(historically a major income source for them), but also gives away
the exact same software for download via FTP. You cannot appeal
to the DFSG/OSD anti-discrimination rule and expect them
to give you a free or even at-cost CD on the strength of it.
Likewise, GPLed software *may* contain technical means that
compel users to pay a fee when they use the program. However,
the libre nature of GPLed software means that anyone can create
a version of the program which does not contain that code.
> You can not say: customer A may redistribute/modify sources and pay a
> fee to you and customer B may NOT modify it.
> OSI simply says: ALL CUSTOMERS ARE EQUAL.
In respect of their rights to modify, redistribute, etc.
Not necessarily in all other respects.
There is / one art || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness \\ -- Piet Hein
More information about the License-discuss