Yes you are correct, I was wrong in that statement. I just looked it up. On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 8:18 PM, Cliff <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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 <[email protected]> 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 > -- -- Regards, Bruce Wade http://ca.linkedin.com/in/brucelwade http://www.wadecybertech.com http://www.warplydesigned.com http://www.fitnessfriendsfinder.com
