&gt; ...I don&#x27;t think you understand what capital is.<p>I -uh- do.<p>&gt; The GPL is fundamentally incompatible with the notion of software as a capital asset; when its value as a salable object is effectively zero due to the ease of marginal duplication...<p>Two things<p>1) That applies to <i>all</i> software. <i>All</i> software -regardless of license- has an effectively-zero duplication cost.<p>2) You can still sell software distributed under the terms of the GPLv2. You can charge <i>any</i> price you like.<p>Calling me names doesn&#x27;t change the falsity of your statement, which was:<p>&gt; [T]he FSF... [insists] that [treating] digital bits as capital is <i>immoral</i>[.]<p>This isn&#x27;t their position. It <i>never</i> was.<p>You seem to think that the only way a thing can be considered capital is if one retains the exclusive rights to control the distribution of the thing. This is an over-narrow definition of capital. :)