On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:32:29 +0100 Moritz Sinn moritz@freesources.org wrote:
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
mmh. afaik no: basically you can do whatever you like if you're the author: imagine the following scenario:
A writes a program P and puts it under the GPL. Then he distributes binary only and doesn't answer to requests of source code. At this point user U wants to do something. But the only person who can legally take action on a copyright/licensing issue is the author (A in our case)... So the only thing U could do is to contact A asking him to sue himself :)
Am i getting this wrong somewhere?
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software. you have to hope on the economical side effects.
I *am* earning money programming free software... :)
cheers paolino