| 1 |
Duncan wrote: |
| 2 |
> Quickly checking wikipedia (without verifying further), I'm probably |
| 3 |
> thinking about a different license, but I had it in my head that GPLv1 |
| 4 |
> had a "no commercial use" clause (or allowed it), and that is why it |
| 5 |
> was no longer considered free software, as it impinged on the user's |
| 6 |
> freedom to use as they wish. Pending further research, therefore, |
| 7 |
> I'll just say I seem to have been mistaken. |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
Looking in section 2b, it mentions that you must "[cause work containing |
| 10 |
GPL'd code..] to be licensed at no charge to all third parties... " |
| 11 |
(excluding warranty protection). This is most probably the issue, that |
| 12 |
you can't sell it. I hadn't realized this before. |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
> The FSF "or later version" clauses are generally optional |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
But isn't this a problem with GPL-2 and 3 also? The term GPL-compatible |
| 17 |
is too vague--which version is it referring to? For example, see |
| 18 |
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/ again: |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
Please note that GPLv2 is, by itself, not compatible with GPLv3. |
| 21 |
However, most software released under GPLv2 allows you to use the |
| 22 |
terms of later versions of the GPL as well. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
So doesn't it already assume that GPL-2 code contains the 'later |
| 25 |
version' option? |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
But in any case GPL-1 is probably not suitable for either license group, |
| 28 |
if theres a case where it can't be sold. |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
I still support Ulrich's suggestions though. |
Archives