Renaming doesn't violate the GPL. You are free to do anything with the code except try to distribute binaries and keep the source code closed. Also, you do have to include a copy of the license. Other than that, pretty much, anything goes (with the exception of removing copyright notices). Jan On Thu, 2003-12-04 at 17:08, Anahata wrote: > On Thu, Dec 04, 2003 at 01:33:53PM -0800, Brian Redfern wrote: > > I don't know, if you're selling people audacity on cdrom, as long as you > > include the source I wouldn't think its illegal > > For minimal compliance with the GPL he only needs to include a copy of > the GPL on the CD and at least be prepared to supply source to anyone > who asks for it. (AIUI) > > > I don't know why anyone > > would buy it on cd > > For the same reason that people pay for Linux distributions or for other > GNU software on CD - convenience/laziness. Especially as a whole lot of > plugins are included on the CD (I don't think you get those with the > standard Audacity package, do you?) > > As discussed recently on this list, GPL sets no limits on how much you > can charge for something if some mug is silly enough to pay for it :-) > > It's not quite the same as boxed sets of Linux distros where there is a > support element in what you are paying for. > > The attraction of trying to do this with Audacity in particular is that > it's a Windows program (as offered), so there's a huge potential market, > and Windows users are less likely to be aware of free software in > general and Audacity in particular, and therefore won't understand that > the program is there for the taking. > > The only thing that looks supect to me is the deception inherent in the > renaming of the package, but I don't know what the GPL and the law have > to say about that. > > -- > Anahata > anahata@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx -+- http://www.treewind.co.uk > Home: 01638 720444 Mob: 07976 263827
