[ale] STORY LINK: Vendor slammed for 'selling' patches

[kafka at antichri.st (George Carless)]

> > Why would it be a violation of the GPL?  If the GPL allows one to sell
> > products generally, wouldn't it similarly allow one to sell patches?
> It is a violation because the GPL says it's a violation.  We had a thread
> on this earlier this year.

The implication of my question was that the GPL *doesn't* say it's a violation.  You're allowed (nay, 
encouraged) to charge whatever you like for the distribution of GPL software.  Of course the normal approach 
is to charge for the binaries (upon which you need also supply the source), but I'm not certain that it 
wouldn't be entirely permissable to distribute the source in lieu of the binaries, charging for the 
distribution of the source.  The general stipulation of the GPL is that if you charge for the binaries (as 
you're entirely entitled to, and as much as you like) then you need to also supply the source.  This is 
where the "reasonable charge" applies - but I don't believe it would apply in this case.  It's free as in 
speech, not free as in beer..

--George