Charging ($20) for GPL source?

[Sebastian Gottschall]

but they are providing the sourcecode as physical media shipment and 
this is enough

Omar Kaminski schrieb:
> Okay, Shane.
>
> But these subjetive questions make the evolution. I am not questioning 
> the GPL itself.
>
> Remember the topic, they didn't make the source code avaliable only. 
> Besides, without the code you cannot exercise all the 4 liberties of 
> Free Software.
>
> Omar
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Shane M. Coughlan" 
> <shane at shaneland.co.uk>
> To: "Omar Kaminski" <omar at kaminski.com>
> Cc: <legal at lists.gpl-violations.org>
> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2006 12:11 PM
> Subject: Re: Charging ($20) for GPL source?
>
>
>> Omar Kaminski wrote:
>>> Please, let me reformulate this:
>>> IMO you're *not* imposed to distribute the work licensed under the GPL.
>>> But once you do, the binaries should be avaliable too, or toghether.
>>
>> The GNU GPL requires that if you distribute binaries you must also
>> redistribute source code, but if you distribute only source code you
>> would also be fulfilling the terms of the licence.
>>
>> As for charging, if the actual cost to the company of preparing and
>> shipping the source code on CD ROM is $20 then there is nothing wrong in
>> charging $20; they are fulfilling the terms of the licence.
>>
>> Please let's stick to the terms of the GNU GPL.
>>
>> There is a good FAQ here:
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
>>
>> Discussions about what people think should be done are purely subjective
>> opinion, and do not reflect the obligations imposed on the parties by
>> the GNU GPL.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Shane
>>
>> -- 
>> Shane Coughlan
>> FTF Coordinator
>> Free Software Foundation Europe
>> +41435000366 ext 408
>> coughlan at fsfeurope.org
>> Support Free Software > http://fsfe.org 
>
>