On Dec 28, 4:37 am, "Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Just after some straight answers... The company selling a > commercial license to the GPL software is obviously motivated to > sell me one, as opposed to help clarify the GPL. > > What do you mean with a commercial license?
They have release the software under two licenses - the GPL and what they call a commercial license. The commercial license lets you bundle/ resell etc however you please. The GPL license supposedly lets you do everything the GPL lets you do. The reason there's a problem is what they're telling me is Ok and what the GPL seems to tell me are ok are two different things. > It seems quite difficult to get straight answers on what exactly > is/isn't ok with the GPL... > > Try reading the license, it is very clear even for non-lawyer people. I disagree. There are plenty of spots in the GPL that way too open to interpration, which seems to be exactly the problem here. I and the FAQ interpret it one way, the company interprets it another. Don't get me wrong... I'm not trying to bend any rules or get access to anything I shouldn't have access to here. This company chose to release their software under the GPL. I'd love to be able to make use of the GPL license to their software, I just want to make sure that I'm abiding by the GPL. Ultimately it's the companies interpretation of the GPL that I will abide by, it's their software after all, it would just make sense to me that if a company releases something under the GPL that it would result in some fairly clear cut criteria on what can/can't be done with the software. _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
