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