On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:25:46AM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote: > On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Damian Eads <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Hi Alexander, > > > > > > > > > 3. We don't recommend using phrase "All rights reserved" in copyright > > > statements as it implies/suggests proprietary copyright. Please remove it > > > from your copyright headers. > > > > I should disclose that although we are committed to releasing all of our > > source under the GPL, we believe that as owners of the copyright to the > > code, we may sell non-free licenses for the code. Is that consistent with > > having Savannah host the project? (We understand that we may not re-license > > contributions of others without permission.) > > I don't believe this is directly against Savannah policies, though, > somewhat unpleasant. > > Also we have no control over already approved projects which authors' > might have changed their mind, or have never expressed the intent to > release their project under a non-free license. > > The only wiki page related to this I've found, states: "If your > software is also available under a non-free license, please don't > advertise this on Savannah." > (https://savannah.gnu.org/maintenance/ProprietaryUseOfFreeSoftware) > > So what do you people think?
Well, I think this is still better than Expat-licensed software :) In both cases the software may be used by proprietary vendors, but in this case, they fund the free software developers (MySQL-style). If, however, the proprietary version is somehow better than the free one (VirtualBox-style), then that's different and problematic, because this is enticing people to use proprietary software. That being my personal opinion. The wiki page sounds good - allowing this practice, but not mentioning it at Savannah. -- Sylvain
