On Fri, 12 Oct 2001, Dave C. wrote:
> 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
:
> 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
:
> 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
Please, gentlemen. I don't believe there was anything in my original
posting that suggested we were thinking of other than normal GPL-compliant
behaviour. And even if that was expressed badly, my followup was very
clear on that point. If you aren't sure of what rights you have to sell
binaries only of GPL'd, source-available software, please refer to the FSF
web site.
And I must say, I don't think any of the GPL-avoidance schemes proposed on
the list or to me in private have much merit. The GPL works well in many
situations just as it is, and I feel that this is certainly one of them.
(And in any case, getting around the GPL for any major project is usually
very difficult if not impossible.)
--
Dan Shearer
Open Source Manager
Mob: +61 411 49 1800
Tel: +61 8 8130 3104
dan@???
