On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 22:00:57 -0500
Vincent Launchbury <vinc...@doublecreations.com> wrote:
> 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.
Of course you can sell the software (as long as you distribute the
[perhaps] derivative sources), you just can't /license/ it for money.
Please look into the legal verbiage - you seem incredibly confused as
to what it all means and you're confusing the matter even more for
others.
jer
