IPL as a burden

John Cowan 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.



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 mailing list