On Tue, 19 Jan 2016 12:21:46 -0800 (PST) Walter Landry wrote: > Riley Baird <[email protected]> wrote: [...] > > Regardless, the below clause is a non-commercial clause, which isn't > > compatible with the GPLv2: > >> //1. The users agree not to charge for the model owner code itself but may > >> //charge for additions, extensions, or support. > > I do not think this is not a problem in practice. If you add a > trivial addition to the code, then you are allowed to charge for the > code.
It may be fine with respect to DSFG#1 (as well as to the other guidelines), but I think it is GPLv2-incompatible anyway, since it is a further restriction not included in the GPLv2 text... -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/ There's not a second to spare! To the laboratory! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgp4jeZojTUHA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
