IPL as a burden
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