On 9/5/06, പ്രവീണ്|Praveen pravi.a@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
IT Manger's journal has an article about 10 common misunderstandings about the GPL which you can read here http://www.itmanagersjournal.com/article.pl?sid=06/08/21/1659203
The experts NewsForge consulted to come up with this are: Richard Fontana, a lawyer with the Software Freedom Law Center and one of the main drafters of the third version of the license; David Turner, former compliance engineer at the Free Software Foundation who is assisting with the revisions of the license; and Harald Welte of the GPL-Violations projecthttp://gpl-violations.org/, which tracks possible cases of non-compliance and tries to assist in resolving them.
<quote>In the end, Turner concedes, some degree of confusion is probably inescapable. "There's always going to be people who misunderstand," he says, "no matter how you write the license, even in words of one syllable."
</quote>
Regards Praveen -- "Value your freedom, or you will lose it, teaches history. `Don't bother us with politics', respond those who don't want to learn." -- Richard Stallman Me scribbles at http://www.pravi.co.nr -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
Hi all Although the GPL clearly states that selling GPLd software is permitted, my colleagues often raise one doubt. They complain that selling GLPd software is meaningless since the buyer will also have access to the source & can therefore make any number of copies of the application for free. This is possible because one can buy a copy, modify it & redistribute the modified copy for free. Is the GPL ``viral'' in this sense too ? That is, is the derived work non-free (in terms of money) too and the payments to be redirected to the author?
Regards, Mohan S N