J de Boyne Pollard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > JdeBP> Incorrect. Come now! This is a GPL Frequently Given > JdeBP> Answer. The correct answer, which you will find at > JdeBP> <URL:http://fsf.org./licensing/licenses/gpl- > faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney>, > JdeBP> as well as on Hoard's own web site at > JdeBP> <URL:http://prisms.cs.umass.edu./emery/index.php? > page=frequently-asked-questions-2>, > JdeBP> is that one can sell a product that incorporates free > JdeBP> software, such as Hoard, as long as thatproduct is > JdeBP> itself free software. In other words, the product > JdeBP> incorporating the code must, overall, provide users > JdeBP> with the same four freedoms from the Free Software > JdeBP> Definition that the incorporated code does. > > AW> My assumption was that when Chris said "charge a > AW> fee for a commerical product" he meant a CLOSED > AW> SOURCE product, or at least one that wasn't itself GPL. > > That assumption, that "commercial" and "closed source" are synonyms, > is _exactly_ the error that the GPL FGA is combatting.
My assumption was about Chris's use of the term, not about "commercial" and "closed source" in general --- I know many examples of software licensed under the GPL which you can pay money for. However, given the common misconceptions it's probably wise to make that explicit. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Just Software Solutions Ltd - http://www.justsoftwaresolutions.co.uk Registered in England, Company Number 5478976. Registered Office: 15 Carrallack Mews, St Just, Cornwall, TR19 7UL _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
