<div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><span class="q"></span>The GPL does not forbid charging money for software; it only restricts additional charges made for access to the source code. So if I want to sell GPLed software for $20, a Federal Reserve Note bearing the visage of Andrew Jackson becomes a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3 software", and everyone who spends one is now bound by the GPL.
</blockquote><div><br>Another bad analogy -- money is not a "certificate redeemable for GPLv3
software" -- it is legal tender that can be used to purchase ANYTHING
-- are you saying that having money to purchase anything makes you as
closely-related to the "conveyance" of all purchased goods as MS is to the
redemption of Novell SLED coupons? Bit of a stretch, if you ask me.<br>
</div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">This is why I went for the gift certificate analogy in the first place. A gift certificate is a promise made by its issuer to provide some goods and/or services to a third party, who could otherwise purchase same for cash. These vouchers, issued by Novell, grant permission to receive support services, including downloads of updates from Novell's servers, which would otherwise require payment to Novell. It is Novell that makes the promise, and Novell that makes it good. Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement, either primarily or secondarily, by reselling these certificates, any more than I make myself liable for health code violations at a McDonald's by redistributing or reselling their gift certificates or $20 bills.
<br><br>
</blockquote></div><br>Another bad anology -- health code laws are about as different from copyright laws in both their written form, and their interpretations in court, as two things can be and both still be called "LAWS". You're still missing my point -- the trend in this country is to try to create "IP" law (both written laws and case laws) that gives the creator of something ULTIMATE, TOTAL, AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL UNTIL THE END OF TIME of the thing they've created. Can you really say the same seems to apply to laws that govern health conditions at McDonald's?
<br><br>Hate to sound like a broken record here, but you saying "Microsoft does nothing to make itself liable for copyright infringement", doesn't make that statement any more true than it was the last time you stated it. All that matters is the judge and jury's opinion of whether MS is liable (that, and the price of the shoes worn by the lawyers for the respective parties ... ).
<br><br><br><br><br><br>JOE<br><br>