| 1 |
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500 |
| 2 |
Vincent Launchbury <vincent@×××××××××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> Duncan wrote: |
| 5 |
> > Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably |
| 6 |
> > thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that |
| 7 |
> > GPLv1 had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is |
| 8 |
> > why it was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on |
| 9 |
> > the user's freedom to use as they wish. Pending further research, |
| 10 |
> > therefore, I'll just say I seem to have been mistaken. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work |
| 13 |
> containing GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third |
| 14 |
> parties... " (excluding warranty protection). This is most probably |
| 15 |
> the issue, that you can't sell it. I hadn't realized this before. |
| 16 |
|
| 17 |
Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the |
| 18 |
[perhaps] derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money. |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as |
| 21 |
to what it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for |
| 22 |
others. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
jer |
Archives