Am 14.09.22 um 18:39 schrieb Maude Summerside:
This is where intellectual shortcut starts...
Free/OSS doesn't mean GPL.
There's plenty of Free/OSS software that the copyright owner retains
right to commercial licensing. Just look at libraries, some of them will
be in such a licensing term that if you use the free version, you have
to share your code if you distribute it but they offer a commercial
license that allow you to link and distribute without source code. If
you only stick to Debian, no such thing because they aren't in the
licensing term accepted for distribution.
But let say QT, you have a free version, force you to distribute freely
if linked against or you go with the commercial license.
Why would the owner of the copyright regarding Chromium (that can write
their own terms) couldn't reserve himself a right to make a closed
source version (like Google Chrome, owned by the owner of Chromium license).
Something taking a break and make some research just shows off that we
don't only know how to type code, but we have a bit more knowledge than
that, regarding mostly real life example of what's also part of the
ecosystem.
Thanks for trying to point out. I am afraid, it is beyond me as is dual
licensing in general.
--
Signal (Safer than WhatsApp): +49 1578 7723737
Threema (Safer than WhatsApp): A76MKH3J
Handy: +49 1578 772 37 37
