Shriramana Sharma <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library > is dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial > licence.
Please note that the GPL *is* a commercial license. Nothing in it prevents anyone engaging in commerce -- selling the software or anything related to it -- and many organisations and individuals have been doing exactly that for many years. Free software *is* commercial software; any software with a license that restricted its sale is non-free by definition. Mistakenly using "commercial" as though it were the opposite of "free" spreads the fallacy. <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html> The distinction you may be looking for is "under the GPL and under a non-free license". <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial> -- \ "The errors of great men are venerable because they are more | `\ fruitful than the truths of little men." -- Friedrich Nietzsche | _o__) | Ben Finney -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]