Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license
> their project under the GPL and a commercial-license.
The GPL *is* a commercial license; all free software is entirely open
to commercial activity, by definition. To imply otherwis
On 30/04/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license.
I think you've already been nitpicked about this, but I'll do it again
anyways: the GPL *is* a commercial license. D
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
On 5/4/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Looks OK to me, so long as there's nothing prohibiting the removal of
the note at the end.
I forgot to mention: while this is OK, it would be even better to use
the standard GPL header with your note at the end.
--
Andrew Donnellan
ajdlin
On 5/1/07, Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to
publicise this until the official release which is why I am using
generic terms - i.e. this is a
A company X which creates a product A, has decided to dual-license their
project under the GPL and a commercial-license. They have asked not to
publicise this until the official release which is why I am using
generic terms - i.e. this is a real question with immediate relevance,
and not a hypo
6 matches
Mail list logo
