On Thu, 2001-10-11 at 18:04, Dan Shearer wrote:
> 3. Pay for? But this is GPL software!
>
> Indeed. Nevertheless, that's what we mean. Windows users expect to pay
> for software, and like to get nice reminders of having done so such as
> packaging, and manuals, and holographic certificates and the like. That's
> the way they are, and nothing anyone says on this list is likely to change
> that fact. Plenty of Windows users could present sound business cases
> for why they like to do things this way.
I've no problem with you selling GPL software. However you must make
the source available to those that buy it, and you cannot prevent them
redistributing the source or the binaries. If you wish to prevent this
happening you must release it under something other than the GPL, which
means you must get exim licensed to you under different terms. This is
perfectly possible as long as all the code copyright holders agree to it
- and there is your problem.
Your alternative is for your business model to either have the budget
for the resulting court case, or to hope that no one will actually get
round to calling your bluff. Since you are releasing commercial
software significantly based on a University's output, I would think the
University, which has a responsibility to leverage its output, would be
minded to challenge.
Nigel.
