On 28.06.2017 01:46, Rick Moen wrote:

> OK, let's say I just wrote a codebase and declare it to be under GPLv2
> licence terms. I haven't yet put it up for download, but am willing to
> give you a source code instance for €10. Please explain to me why I may
> not offer to sell you that codebase.

Entirely different scenario. They don't own the whole kernel - they just
picked it from the net, changed it and redistribute the changed version.
This is exactly where the GPL's viral effect is supposed to kick in.

> Hypothetical #2. I find a copy of a very nice, fast, good-looking X11
> (FLTK-based) MUA by Pim van Riezen named Post Office, that used to be
> freely distributed on the Internet but has vanished after van Riezen
> discontinued maintenance. I offer you a source code instance for €10.
> Please explain to me why I may not offer to sell you that codebase.

That's just the distribution case. You're just acting as the postman,
and of course you may charge a free for that. But you can't deny the
receiver to redistribute it again.

If you redistribute the binary, you'll also have to hand out the source.
And you may not impose any restrictions on further redistribution.

> You suggested that one may not sell GPL software.

Seems we had a misunderstanding: of course you can sell it, but you
can't deny the customers to redistribute it again. This raises the
question why anybody should pay at all, once it's redistributed for
free. So, to make that business case work, you'd have to prevent your
customers from redistribution. This, in turn, violates the GPL and
immediately voids the license - IOW: you may not even use the software
yourself.


--mtx