Re: Microsoft needs a help strategy

[David Kastrup]

Rjack <user@example.net> writes:

> Tim Smith wrote:
>> In article <4980a453$0$21838$ec3e2dad@news.usenetmonster.com>,
>>  "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> wrote:
>>> What is at issue today, though, is the nature of such "default
>>> copyright rules".  If there is no fee charged to use the work or to
>>> redistribute the work, the copyright can be ignored unless the
>>> author can show some degree of harm to himself.
>>
>> Where did you get that idea?  Not from the copyright statute, nor
>> from the case law.
>>
>
> Actually the GPL requires licensing and distribution of the source
> code to "all third parties" and no benefit (consideration) is intended
> for either contracting party (parties in privity) to the GPL agreement
> (try reading the GPL sometime).

Huh?  What did you not understand about:

      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 them if you wish), that you receive 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.

[...]

      You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.

[...]

    d) Convey the object code by offering access from a designated
    place (gratis or for a charge), and offer equivalent access to the
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place at no
    further charge.


Try reading the GPL sometime.


-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum