On 15/01/2007, at 1:28 PM, Guyren Howe wrote:
The only cost involved is that if you want to modify the software, you can't sell the results without also giving those results away. This seems fair enough to me: you're basing what you're doing on what a bunch of other people have done, and *they* are giving you *their* work on that same basis. We all must share, so that we all may benefit. Fair enough.
You also can't just USE the source without being forced to give away your work - it's not just about modifying. It's not just about selling software - you can't give away a binary that makes use of GPL source without violating the GPL. If you distribute, for profit or not, you are supposed to publish your source.
Yes I agree it is nice to have people share. I choose to share things under a different license so I'm not enforcing things on others.
I actually think dual licensing is a very good thing - it keeps the GPL-nazis happy and allows companies to buy commercial licenses. I have no problems with the MySQL dual licensing but I think RS need to make the obligation a lot clearer.
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
