Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6455 comp.os.linux:12187 comp.unix.bsd:6316
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.linux,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!uunet!stanford.edu!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!hamblin.math.byu.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: distributing linux on floppies
Message-ID: <1992Oct9.001607.7471@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1992Oct7.164402.29427@uc.msc.edu> <1992Oct8.200527.1567@fcom.cc.utah.edu> <1b27slINNj2f@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 92 00:16:07 GMT
Lines: 69
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).
There is, of course, the alternative of each person in the chain bieng
a source code guarantor, but it is unlikely that a retail store will go for
this.
The *only* way to sell software you don't hold title to is to mark it up
or add value... GPL eliminates the middleman, or at least the profit
motive which causes a middleman to be involved. The result is no access
to existing distribution channels.
>The important thing a distributor and retailer must keep in mind is that
>they must distribute the source code, or provide a method of obtaining
>the source code for up to three years, and that they cannot limit the
>redistribution of the software.
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 a local user group wants to purchase a copy of the distribution and sell
>duplicates for less than the retailer or distributor, the retailer or
>distributor may not stop them from competing.
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
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.
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lambert@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------