Re: Wallace's reply brief

[Alexander Terekhov]

John Hasler wrote:
> 
> Ferd Burfel writes:
> > Ah, so we finally hit upon your disagreement with the GPL: It doesn't
> > allow people to take the work of others (that they obtained for no
> > charge) and turn around and make a commerical product out of it.
> 
> Yes it does.  What it does not allow is a _closed source_ product.

http://www.terekhov.de/Wallace-case-FAQ-for-dummies-v1.9.txt

------
Q: The GPL allows charging fees for binaries, only source code must be
available under the GPL at no charge. So what's the problem?

A: You need to contact IBM's legal counsel and set them straight before
they further embarrass themselves: "65. Among the "further restrictions"
that the GPL and LGPL do not permit are royalties or licensing fees (Ex.
27  2, 3; Ex. 26  2, 4) (although fees can be collected for "the
physical act of transferring a copy" of the code or for warranty
protection). (Ex. 27  1; Ex. 26  1.) If modified works or machine-
readable versions of GPL- or LGPL-licensed software are distributed,
they must be licensed "at no charge to all third parties under the
terms of this License." (Ex. 27  2 (emphasis added); Ex. 26  2; see
also Ex. 27  3; Ex. 26  4.)" --- REDACTED MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF
IBM'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT in SCO v. IBM (see Groklaw).
------

regards,
alexander.