Anthony, thank you. I appreciate the update. Bruce, of course you can sell the code. There is nothing in the GPL to stop anyone from downloading the Red Hat source, stripping out the Red Hat copyrighted materials such as logos and trademarks, inserting my own trade dress, compiling the result and selling DVDs of it on the street for whatever I can get for them.
You can always redistribute, as the GPL is designed to protect the freedom to share. Whether you charge money or not is up to you. On Feb 9, 8:28 pm, Anthony <abasta...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I don't know what is meant by "a lot of people." But there are some > > statistics that seem to indicate a lot more people prefer the GPL. As > > of June 2009, the GPL licenses accounted for ~ 65% usage. BSD > > accounted for 6.3. Now I realize that's more than 30 months ago, or > > two centuries in internet years. Still, I doubt there has been a big > > swing in the intervening time. > > > You can read more about it here: > >http://www.blackducksoftware.com/news/releases/2009-06-30 > > According to the latest data > (http://osrc.blackducksoftware.com/data/licenses/index.php), there has in > fact been a trend toward the more permissive licences (i.e., BSD, MIT, > Apache, etc.), which now account for at least 26% of projects, with GPL > dropping to only 57%. I think it also varies by type of software -- for > example, at least in the Python and Ruby web development world, I think > most frameworks and related tools tend to have permissive licenses like BSD > and MIT. GPL might be more common for end-user software. > > Anthony
