Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6439 comp.os.linux:12002 comp.unix.bsd:6231 Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!ra!tantalus.nrl.navy.mil!eric From: eric@tantalus.nrl.navy.mil (Eric Youngdale) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: distributing linux on floppies Message-ID: <3933@ra.nrl.navy.mil> Date: 9 Oct 92 02:31:37 GMT References: <1992Oct8.200527.1567@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1b27slINNj2f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <1992Oct9.001607.7471@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: usenet@ra.nrl.navy.mil Organization: Naval Research Laboratory Lines: 81 In article <1992Oct9.001607.7471@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >In article <1b27slINNj2f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes: >>In article <1992Oct8.200527.1567@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@icarus.weber.edu writes: >>>In particular, the last sentence, "You may charge a fee for the physical >>>act of transferring a copy" prevents centralized distribution; this is >>>because only the distributor may make money; no money may be made from >>>at the retail outlet, unless the retail outlet provides direct support >>>or copy production facilities. The only other alternative is that the >>>company producing the copies pays the retailer per copy sold. This is >>>illegal in the US, and, I suspect, elsewhere (it's called a "kickback"). >> >>Excuse me, but where do you get your interpretation from? > >By choosing a definition of "transfer" which does not equate to a change >in posession or ownership. The interpretation is too subjective. In >addition, there is a difference between one fee and several fees. > >>When the distributer sells a copy of software covered by the GPL to a >>retailer, they are transferring a copy. When the retailer sells a copy >>of software covered by the GPL to a customer, they are transferring a >>copy. Money can be made from the sale and distribution of software >>covered by the GPL. > >*Not* the sale; *only* the distribution, and *only* for a single markup >from origin (Ie: use of a multimarkup distribution channel is *not* >allowed, in that it involves more than one fee). I do not see how you reach this conclusion. Could you please explain where it says that a multimarkup distribution channel is not allowed? If this were the case, then I could not load GPL software on a BBS that had a charge for connect time if the software had come from a tape that I had purchased, but it would be permissible if I had downloaded it via ftp (provided that I did not have to pay for the ftp connection). Also, I think you are still missing the distinction between distributing binaries and distributing source code. There is no language in section 3 that limits the markup or profit for binary distributions. You just have to make the source code available for a nominal distribution fee. Also, I see no reason that the retailer needs to worry about the source code distribution, since the person who puts together the binaries should be the responsible party. >Which requires an escrow arrangement, because many dealers can not guarantee >they will be in business or under the same management in 3 years. A dealer >is pretty stupid if he buys into this, for obvious reasons. If I were a dealer, I would take a more pragmatic approach. I would figure that if I went out of business, the users would be screwed, and there would not be a heck of a lot that anyone could do about it. What is the worst that could happen? Someone could sue a bankrupt company?? >Barring the fact that I hold a copyright on the "3d glasses" and related >materials, and that they can *only* distribute the software itself, this >is yet another reason a dealer and distributor wouldn't carry GPL'ed >software: No margin after a user group member buys the first copy. What The very same thing happens with copyrighted software. I have seen estimates that only 20% of software is actually paid for, and the rest is pirate copies. Everyone knows that it goes on, and nearly everyone does it. For example, have you noticed how many Lotus books there are in bookstores? Why would anyone who bought Lotus need an additional book? The other thing is that a nice manual will make it worth it for someone to buy the package even after they have the binaries, and this is something that you *do* have a copyright on. >is a distributor or dealers incentive for carring a product he's going >to sell one copy of, and that will compete with products the dealer and >distributor will make a reasonable margin on? Again, GPL software is >cut off from normal distribution channels. I think the main thing that cuts the GPL software out of normal channels is the fact that most distributors are unfamiliar with GPL types of licenses, and there are a lot of misconceptions about what GPL means, and what is allowed under GPL. -Eric -- Eric Youngdale