🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <LEE.91May3111536@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:

   In article <GUMBY.91Apr24115301@Cygnus.COM> gumby@Cygnus.COM (David V. Wallace) writes:
	     From: geissler@D012S050@ap542.uucp (Norbert Geissler)
	     I got the answer, that I can get this GCC if I pay(!) for the effort they
	     had to do the porting.
      You should check the GNU Manifesto and Licence to see that the "FREE"
      part of Free Software is "FREEDOM" rather than "No Cost".

   Well, here's the license info from Emacs 18.55 (I didn't have the gcc one
   handy, but it's essentially the same:

   --------------------------------------------------------------------------
     2. You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or
   any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under
   the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following:
   [....elided]
       b) cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish,
       that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs
       or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third
       parties on terms identical to those contained in this License
       Agreement (except that you may choose to grant more extensive
       warranty protection to some or all third parties, at your option).
   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

   Sounds like you're wrong, though I didn't see anything to prevent one
   from couching the fees as "support" fees, as Cygnus does.  There is
   obviously a strong NO COST emphasis as well as intended FREEDOM OF
   DISTRIBUTION.

Actually, you're wrong, but it's easy to make this mistake: the pertinent
wording is "LICENSED at no charge...".  It does NOT say "DISTRIBUTED at
no charge...".

The idea is that licensing of all GPL-protected software is free but
nevertheless required so the GPL still protects the software (as compared
to public domain).

However, one may charge whatever one wants for distributions (as the FSF itself
does; an EMACS tape, for example, costs $200 or thereabouts) and support (as
does Cygnus Support).

It is important to understand that by "free", not only is "freedom" meant,
but so is "no cost" as regards the freedom to use your OWN equipment and
your OWN time to make your OWN copies for free.  That is why there can be
no charge for licensing -- licenses (usually) restrict a customer to using
one copy per license at a time.  That is also why there can be a charge for
distribution -- the distributor certainly may (or may choose not to) charge
for HIS/HER time and HIS/HER equipment to provide a distribution for someone
else.  This charge is not a licensing charge, but a distribution charge.

What a distributor can't do is, in the process of providing a distribution of
GPL-protected (GNU) software, employ any legal means to prevent the recipient
of that distribution from making as many copies as they want for themselves or
others.  Even if the recipient "wants" to enter into such a voluntarily
restrictive agreement in order to obtain the software (as do thousands of
customers of traditional software, apparently -- unless and until GPL-
protected and public-domain software become ubiquitous, I suppose).

(If you think this is confusing, remember that all these issues are already
involved, implicitly, when you buy, say, Microsoft Word -- you're paying for:
a) the cost of distribution; b) the license to use the software (which
is where R&D costs typically are recouped, I think); and c) the free support
you'll get at some level for some period of time.  It is a bit less
confusing to pay for all these things at one time and have only one source,
but on the other hand you don't have the right to employ your own (cheaper)
means of distribution nor the right to choose your own support organization,
not to mention that lack of availability of source code.  Moreover, in
addition to R&D costs, there are numerous other costs such as advertising,
marketing, paying head honchos, &c, that are absorbed into the cost of a
product like Word, and for a product like Lotus 1-2-3, the additional costs
of suing anyone making a simlar competitive product.  Organizations like the
FSF avoid most of these costs, so only the development cost is outstanding;
but much of that "cost" is spread out over many contributors who also are
users of the software, since they have the source.)
--

James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu