🚀 go-pugleaf

On Sun, 04 Oct 1998 22:43:29 GMT, fweigel@my-dejanews.com wrote:

>In article <qLos6hA$1WF2EwM3@dlsl.demon.co.uk>,
>  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
>>
>
>Jason:
>
>Sorry for posting from dejanews (this is nospam again).
>
>The license *doesn't* prohibit selling the software! It simply
>removes the right to remove the right of distribution! In other
>words, it *adds* freedom.
>
>nospam.

that's it exactly.  you can sell it, you just can't own it.  it's a
weird concept that makes sense because it's not really property
anyway.  it regulates conduct, not anything tangible.