Re: Confused about LGPL terms - can you help?

[Alexander Terekhov]

"Alfred M. Szmidt" wrote:
[...]
> a mistake, and a grave one at that to claim that non-free (or closed
> source) software is the same as commercial software .  Commercial
> software can be either non-free software, free software, open source
> software or even close source software.  But it can also exclude
> non-free software, open source software and close source software,
> since all of those can be in some situations non-free software, which
> might prohibit the act of distributing the program for a fee.  Free
> software never does this, it always guarantees the right to charge a
> fee for a program.

Uff. Back to life.

Go to clinic, ams.

"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.