Free?

[Chante]

I'm not getting the point on this, so I have to ask again what you mean 
and this time I will do it by analysis (breaking it into pieces) and you 
can then see what I'm not getting and hence tell me. (I read the 
follow-up posts but I still don't get it). It could very well be that my 
mind right now is locked-in to my own train of thought and I'm not able 
to escape it for all the other things currently on my mind (read, no 
brain-power to use for non-top-priority things).

"Kagamin" <spam at here.lot> wrote in message 
news:j881u4$79e$1 at digitalmars.com...
> Chante Wrote:
>
>> > there's no mercantile reason

Paraphrased: There is no reason for a company in the business of selling 
software

>> > to restrict use of a patented technology

Why would they have gotten the patent if not to restrict the use of the 
patented thing? After R&D and associated costs, a company gets a patent 
to allow them to recover the R&D costs, and then some, from the exclusive 
right to sell (/produce?) the patented thing for a given period of time.

>> > in a GPL3 software.

Why would a company "void" their patent (i.e., effectively give up the 
exclusive right to sell/produce the patented thing) by stamping it "GPL"?

>>
>> Explain that statement please. Do you wish to retract it?
>
> GPL software cannot be sold for profit,

Well-known fact, OK.

> so even if the author

The software company that obtained the patent? Someone rendering the 
patent other than the patent holder? The latter is illegal, yes?

> would be charged a fee

"fee" what? "fee" upon whom? Who's "authoring" anything other than the 
patent holder with the exclusive right to sell/produce the patented 
thing?

> 1% per sold copy

???

> the patent holder will get 0 anyway.

Written as "conclusive in support of <whatever>" but the path to this 
"conclusion", and therefor this "conclusion", is, "non-sensical"?

****

Help me out here please. What am I missing?