3 ms·

It was GNU GPL.

• georgemcbay 15y ago
  Actually it doesn't matter what license it is. It isn't so much that the GNU GPL allows or disallows you to sell a commercial version without source but rather that the original copyright holder can release the software under as many different licenses as they want to, similar to the way that Nokia (née Trolltech) used to release Qt as GPL but also sell commercial licenses that allowed you to not be beholden to the GPL. The trick is that the person releasing under multiple licenses must own all the code (which is one of the reasons some projects require copyright assignment to contribute). Of course all of this is likely irrelevant in this specific case, since I don't think this guy is telling the truth here, but you can absolutely sell GPL (or any other FOSS license) licensed code to other parties under a different license that doesn't require them to share code as long as you hold the copyright to that code.
  • zodttd 15y ago
    What truth am I to tell?
    • seabee 15y ago
      Presumably, the 'truth' that they originally found out about. Given there have been a few spins on the story and one player (Google) is being characteristically quiet, not everyone will believe you, or be generous to suppose an innocent misunderstanding happened.
      • zodttd 15y ago
        That's a shame. There's not much to this. Summed up here: http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licensing/ http://www.zodttd.com/wp/2011/05/open-source-software-licens...