3 ms·

"Any use of Gridifier for a commercial purpose is subject to and requires a commercial license. With commercial license GPLv3 license terms are not used. Instea

"Any use of Gridifier for a commercial purpose is subject to and requires a commercial license. With commercial license GPLv3 license terms are not used. Instead of that, terms described on developer license page are applyied." That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied.

ceejayoz 11y ago
> That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied. Except GPL section 7 says I can ignore your non-commercial restriction. If you want to restrict commercial use, you must pick a different license. GPL won't work.
justifier 11y ago
here is the full text for you to examine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt another post mentions section seven: Additional Terms; i had to look it up to check the commentator's assertion i'd suggest explaining in clear terms what you would like to achieve with the licensing of your work i am sure the people here would be happy to help you find an agreeable license another resource: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ http://choosealicense.com/licenses/
- szdszdszd 11y ago
  Ok, I have read section 7 one more time and debates over the internet. As I see many users are unhappy with such type of dual licensing. Which scheme will be perfectly clear for everyone? Will http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for non-commercial/ developer license for commercial be ok for everyone?
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    Unless you're a contract lawyer I would always default to assuming the least beneficial outcome for yourself when something isn't clear cut.
  - szdszdszd 11y ago
    Switched to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/
brazzledazzle 11y ago
I think there are better licenses for the "want your cake and eat it too" scenario.

ceejayoz 11y ago

> That means, that if product is being used for commercial purposes, GPLv3 license rules are not applied. Except GPL section 7 says I can ignore your non-commercial restriction. If you want to restrict commercial use, you must pick a different license. GPL won't work.

justifier 11y ago

here is the full text for you to examine http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt another post mentions section seven: Additional Terms; i had to look it up to check the commentator's assertion i'd suggest explaining in clear terms what you would like to achieve with the licensing of your work i am sure the people here would be happy to help you find an agreeable license another resource: http://choosealicense.com/licenses/ http://choosealicense.com/licenses/

szdszdszd 11y ago
Ok, I have read section 7 one more time and debates over the internet. As I see many users are unhappy with such type of dual licensing. Which scheme will be perfectly clear for everyone? Will http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ for non-commercial/ developer license for commercial be ok for everyone?
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  Unless you're a contract lawyer I would always default to assuming the least beneficial outcome for yourself when something isn't clear cut.
- szdszdszd 11y ago
  Switched to http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/

brazzledazzle 11y ago

I think there are better licenses for the "want your cake and eat it too" scenario.