"Phoebus R. Dokos (F??�?? ?. ?t????)" wrote: > That is not possible under any legal agreement. It's other one or the > other especially for GPL style licenses as the premise is so different > that it is impossible to do so.
I can release my software under any number of licences I chose to do. I can release it under the GPL and yet keep my own source changes for me. Or sell closed source binaries to others. It only gets more complicated once I want to integrate things people have done to my GPL version into my other one. As long as I'm the only one I can do whatever I want. > And to be honest, especially you I do not believe that you are motivated > by $$$ but by genuine appreciation of the platform. Yes, if I was motivated by $$$ I would have left the scene several years ago, I'd have to sell at least 1 QPC per hour to really make it commercially viable for me. But writing computer software is my only income and therefore I must somehow justify any time I spend on something. > Well I agree that Free beer is nice but having something *really* open > source and free does not exclude the possibility of making money out of > it! (See for example Linux distros) Bad example, I know none that actually makes any money out of the end-user business. Look at RedHat, they got rid of it by releasing their stuff into the Fedora project. And I think you will have trouble finding a better example. > Now just for the heck of it... isn't it so much nicer when we > disagree in a civilised manner??? :-D I think it might be hard to find any argument from me that wasn't civilised ;-) > I do believe that at one point we will have to "... have to aaaaaaggggh" "He must have died while typing it" Marcel
