Re: GPL question

[Alexander Terekhov]

David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> You'll find that judges are no mechanical idiots.  

Let's take a look at US appelate court's (panel of three judges) 
interetation of the GPL: 

<quote>

Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the 
Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also 
the creation of derivative works—and the license prohibits charging 
for the derivative work. People may make and distribute derivative 
works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the 
original work. Thus the GPL propagates from user to user and revision 
to revision: neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised 
or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any 
successor to charge. Copyright law, usually the basis of limiting 
reproduction in order to collect a fee, ensures that open-source 
software remains free: any attempt to sell a derivative work will 
violate the copyright laws, even if the improver has not accepted the 
GPL. The Free Software Foundation calls the result “copyleft.”

</quote>

http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf

What do you find, dak?

regards,
alexander.