🚀 go-pugleaf

On 11 Oct 1998 20:56:19 GMT, clee2@envirolink.org (Chris Lee) wrote:

>In article <32188904.6455335@news.concentric.net>, darrow@oneillaw.com 
>says...
>>
>>On Sat, 3 Oct 1998 01:19:11 +0100, Jason Clifford
>><jason@dlsl.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3614FF1F.7582@nospam.nospam>, No Spam <nospam@nospam.nospam>
>>>writes
>>>>To quote from it: "When we speak of free software, we are referring
>>>>to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to
>>>>make sure that you have the freedom to distribute
>>>>copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish),
>>>>that you recieve source code or can get it if you want it, that you
>>>>can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs;
>>>>and that you know you can do these things.
>>>
>>>The license specifically states that one may charge for the service of
>>>copying and distributing the software which is different from selling
>>>the software!
>>>-- 
>>>Jason Clifford
>>
>>it's a difference without a distinction.  try selling the software
>>without distributing it?  That would be like buying stock from a
>>broker who holds it for you in street form.  Congratulations, you've
>>now bought version 5.4.333aaa.-2~1 of somethingware, and we'll just
>>hold it here for you.
>>
>>There is no difference between the sale of software and the delivery
>>(i.e. distribution) of it.
>
>There is indeed a difference bettween the two, and a perfect example of 
>this is the computer books that include cdroms especally the Linux books. 
>What are you really buying a Linux book that include a cdrom or a Linux 
>cdrom that comes with a book?
>

what you are really buying is a book and a cd.  

But this is not really a good example, because however you phrase it,
you are paying for the delivery of linux via the cd.