🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ueu4gxeaka@ads.com> johnston@ADS.COM (Scott E. Johnston) writes:
>In article <284615A0.5415@ics.uci.edu> jhummel@wave.ics.uci.edu (Joseph Edward Hummel) writes:
>>  My original post asked if it was legal for people to charge others for
>>the work of porting gcc (or other GNUware).  Thanks to all who replied,
>>here and via email.  The bottom line is that it sure is legal, and even
>>desirable.
>
>I think the general wisdom on the net is wrong.  According to the
>license, once you distribute or publish a work to one party, you have
>to make it available to all third parties at no charge, with the
>exception of being able to charge a distribution fee for the physical
>act of transferring a copy.
[text deleted]
>I think I agree that it is desirable for organizations like [XXXX] to
>be able to charge for more than distribution costs for ports of GNU
>software, and it is unreasonable to expect someone would port GNU
>software for no charge, but that is not how the license reads.  And
>I am concerned that the free software movement has what appears to be
>a glaring logical inconsistency at its foundation, one that outside
>parties (i.e. lawyers) will sniff out in a second.  

It is not a logical inconsistency.

You read Term (2)(b) of the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE but failed to
understand Term (2)(d) [I quote]:

    d) You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a
    copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in
    exchange for a fee.

What this means is that if a company XXXX does a port of the software,
they may require the purchase of "warranty protection".  This service
could range anywhere from providing "timely support" to "bug fixes when
available".

Most consultants are not just selling "a port".  They are selling a
complete support package.  The fact that you are getting the "port"
is a consequence of your purchasing their support (not vice-versa).

Thus this "warranty" charge can be a requirement of any "third party" who
obtains the software from company XXXX.  The GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
prevents company XXXX placing a limitation on a "third party" from
releasing the source code to a fourth party.  But it places no limitation
on the number of "third parties" that a consultant can support.

Aydin Edguer