IPL as a burden

John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com
Tue Jan 23 19:48:20 UTC 2001

Lou Grinzo wrote:

> What about dual-licensing?  Can a company say, "this tool is free and
> distributed under the GPL, but only for creating free software; if you want
> to sell your software you have to pay for a license and get it under our
> normal close-source license"?  Or would that violate the GPL

If the GPLed copies are distributed freely, it's kind of
pointless, since a GPLed work can be *used* for anything
whatsoever.  The GNU GPL is a copyright license, and constrains
only copying, modifying, and the distribution of modified
and unmodified copies.

> and/or OSI guidelines?

Such a license violates OSD clause 1.

> I'm not asking this in an attempt to be a devil's advocate.  I thought this
> was OK, but this thread now has me wondering if my assumption was wrong or
> if there's some reason why using different licenses with different customers
> isn't a viable solution for the company in question.

The AFPL might be usable; it is not, of course, an open source
There is / one art             || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
no more / no less              || http://www.reutershealth.com
to do / all things             || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
with art- / lessness           \\ -- Piet Hein

More information about the License-discuss mailing list