On 12 Oct 2001, Nigel Metheringham wrote:
> 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.
I suggest it might be possible that if PH10 agreed to license it to them
in some way compatible with their plans, that most contributors would
not have a problem with it. Wether he would or not remains to be seen.
Note to Tellurian: Keep in mind that while exim is "Free Software", it
is still copyright (Phil Hazel, and possibly others), and the only thing
granting you permission to modify or re-release the source code, or any
binaries resultant from the original *OR* modified (eg, ported) source
code, is the GPL, and a condition of doing so is to provide the same
rights that you have (eg GPL) to anyone you provide it do (wether that
be sell/give/trade/etc), INCLUDING the source code that actually
produced any binaries you ship. You cannot ship binaries based on
modified source code without providing the source code that produced
*those* binaries.
If you do not accept the terms of the GPL, then you have no permission
to distribute the original or modifications. Some call this condition
'viral' - it would be more appropriately described as permitting only
*FAIR* sharing (eg, you can use the code made freely available by
others, but you must also provide any code based on that code in the
same free manner), and prohibiting appropriation of the free work of
others for private personal gain.
(Also note: IANAL - you should probably have your own lawyers review the
GPL to see if whatever you are planning on doing is permitted)
> 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.
>
>
> --
> ## List details at http://www.exim.org/mailman/listinfo/exim-users Exim details at http://www.exim.org/ ##
>
--
