(Replying to PARENT post)
No, you are very much encouraged to sell GPL software:
👤diffeomorphism🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
The source of GPL software can be sold, it just has to be available to users of the software.
👤springogeek🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
> offering it for free to the whole world, definitionally
That's definitionally not true. Quoting https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
] if you are redistributing copies of free software, you might as well charge a substantial fee and make some money. Redistributing free software is a good and legitimate activity; if you do it, you might as well make a profit from it. ...
] Except for one special situation, the GNU General Public License (GNU GPL) has no requirements about how much you can charge for distributing a copy of free software. You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace, ...
That's why the linked-to essays says "Technically, the GPL allows [a paywall]" from the text.
👤eesmith🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
No they only have to offer source code to users of their software. In order to use their software you have to buy a license. They have been giving it away for years but are not obligated to. When GNU first came out they sold their source code for thousands of dollars and this is the format GPL was written to enforce.
👤edgyquant🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
Auto makers, TV makers, and others use GPL software left and right and they don't, or rarely, offer a easy way to obtain it. How's it different?
👤LaSombra🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)
I'm asking this non-facetiously: Is there a wikipedia page or a written record of all the people/corps who've been taken to task in court over a GPL violation, or a large company such as IBM? If yes, was the penalty commensurate?
👤lagniappe🕑2y🔼0🗨️0
(Replying to PARENT post)