Guy Steven wrote: > <snip> > > So, in order to have both a GPL and a non-GPL version of the code, > > you split the tree and maintain both separately. Ideally, > > changes would > > be made to the commercial version and then transferred into the > > GPL (rather than the other way 'round). > > I read into what you are saying that the commercial version of the software > is non-gpl. > > My understanding of GPL is that it doesn't prohibit you making a charge for > the software. > Commercial software can be GPL.
Actually, AFAIK there are two parts to this: 1. You can charge for the distribution of GPL software, but your customers can redistribute the software (and source code). 2. You can sell a commercial (non-GPL) licensed version of software in parallel to the GPL version, which may not be redistributed further. >From the iptables COPYING file: " When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things. To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights. These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it. For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights. " Or am I completely wrong? Theuns KRN
