I have not read GPL 2, but as per my knowledge software released through GPL can be freely modified, distributed and used, no matter whether it is for personal or commercial use. So has GPL 2 being changed in a way that the Modification and Distribution are subject to restrictions from original developer and the modifier is accountable to pay for it to the original developer?
This is what actually GPL2 released Dans Guardian Web Content Filtering Software manufacturer claims. http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2 As per the agreement: ===================== DansGuardian 2 - the summary DansGuardian 2 is: * licensed under the GPL version 2 * Open Source * Free Software where 'Free' means Freedom * freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for non-commercial use * freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for general purpose unix distributions like FreeBSD, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc * not freely downloadable from this site for installation by 3rd parties charging for installation or support * not freely downloadable from this site for commercial use * a registered trade mark of Daniel Barron * copyright Daniel Barron DansGuardian 2 - download from this site restrictions for commercial use For all non-commercial[1] use you are free, without cost, allowed to download DansGuardian from this site. For all commercial[2] use permission to download DansGuardian from this website is restricted. The restrictions on the downloading for commercial use from this site are that you may only download it once for free. This will enable you to try out the software before making a decision to purchase a commercial licence to download it. In order to download updates, bug fixes, etc, from this site you must purchase a download licence. Once you have a copy of the software there are no restrictions on use commercial or otherwise. It is purely GPL software. You can download or obtain DansGuardian from many sources and I place no restriction on those. It is only the downloading from this site that is restricted. ============ I am confused as there are some clauses that contradicts FSF's philosophy about Freedom to change and distribute. What more adds to confusion is the First statement on that page: == I would like to thank RMS for personally helping me make sure this licence is clear, Free, obvious and pure GPL. == Is RMS or FSF really aware of this? -- Pravin Balaji Dhayfule
_______________________________________________ network mailing list [email protected] http://lists.fosscom.in/listinfo.cgi/network-fosscom.in
