4 ms·
I don't understand why you're saying it isn't free. Are you saying that because it's dual licensed it's not free? Users would still be able to modify and fork t
by jhauris 7y ago
I don't understand why you're saying it isn't free. Are you saying that because it's dual licensed it's not free? Users would still be able to modify and fork the GPL version in all the normal ways.
- lnsru 7y agoIf I want to use it in my closed source project I must pay to Gisselquist Technology, LLC. Or I am wrong here?
- zipcpu 7y agoIf you want to use it in your closed source project, give me a holler. I'm sure we could work something out. Even if we don't, I'd love to have the opportunity to hear from you, meet you, say hello, and encourage you in any way I can.
- TomVDB 7y agoThey could modify and fork it, but they would also have to release the source code of their full project. That makes it a no-go for regular commercial projects. At least, that's my interpretation: it's always a struggle to apply software oriented licenses to hardware.
- antisemiotic 7y agoLast time I checked, "freedom to include the code in a proprietary product" was not among the freedoms considered essential by the FSF. So GPL with an option to get a commercial license would, at worst, make it free but not open-source.