BitFuzzy wrote the following on 12/16/2004 03:01 PM :
Is this a joke? "licensed under the GPL" & "not free for commercialAs far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with this. In fact I've seen this quite alot.
use".
The GPL does not prevent anyone from making money.
Nothing prevents the author to ask money for its software, but the GPL explicitely allows anyone to redistribute the software (at least if it is legally acquired). So if someone wants to use DansGuardian at home, nothing prevents him/her to redistribute it under the GPL for commercial use..
I'm not convinced DB understands this from what I read on his page :
Lines in the Situation | Can I download it for free tables :
* "I want to use it commercially^[2] . | No, you must buy a download licence."
Which is obsviously wrong unless you download DansGuardian from DB's site (there DB is perfectly able to allow whomever he wants to distribute to).
* "I want to incorporate it into our product or solution. | No, you must buy a solution provider download licence."
Or make it GPL...
* "I want to install it for a charge. | No, you must buy a download licence."
Obviously wrong.
* "I want to mirror the program or make it available to download from a different site. | Yes, but I would prefer you did not."
Seems DB didn't choose an appropriate license for his goals as he tries to work around the "redistribution allowed" part of the GPL...
Lionel. _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
