On Thursday 01 January 2009 09:11, Praveen A wrote: > 2008/12/31 Kenneth Gonsalves <law...@au-kbc.org>: > > On Thursday 01 Jan 2009 2:16:02 am Praveen A wrote: > >> The only confusion is the use of the term commercial to mean > >> proprietary. > > > > so commercial == proprietary? > > No. It is a very common misunderstanding especially for > "businesses" (I keep hearing the term commercial from many of my > colleagues when they actually mean is proprietary) . > Nokia/Trolltech have explained clearly what rights and obligations > you have in the explanations. --
Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale does not understand the term commercial?. I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl, just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal docs or the dictionary. Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence. -- Rgds JTD -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
