Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: Solaris 2.6 and Linux | Date | Sat, 27 Sep 1997 17:31:19 -0500 | From | Jon Hamilton <> |
| |
In message <19970927155411.51012@test.legislate.com>, Raul Miller writes: } Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote: } > Still, we're talking about many products that are totally outside the compu } ter } > industry. Consumer products do not generally include license agreements in } > their manuals (they many not include a manual at all). Something strange l } ike } > may generate a huge volume of support calls from confused or curious } > customers, adding to the cost of the product (many of these products are ve } ry } > inexpensive, so any additional cost can be a big deal). } > } > In most cases, it makes more sense to just go with commercial software for } > these applications, even if the Free Software is technically superior and, } on } > the surface, less expensive. Sad but true. } } Huh? } } So you're saying that if I sell automated whatzits, with some fsf software } in rom, for something like $99, it'll break my back to offer the source } for the software on floppy for another $99?
It may not break your back, but if it doesn't cost you $99 to put the source on floppy, it isn't within the letter of the GPL:
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
-- Jon Hamilton hamilton@pobox.com | hamilton@pitviper.med.ge.com <A HREF="http://www.pobox.com/~hamilton">Jon Hamilton's homepage</A>
| |