3 ms·
Have other people done this dual commercial/GPL license before? Doesn't selling it under a (non-free) commercial license go against everything the FSF stands fo
by pcthrowaway 5y ago
Have other people done this dual commercial/GPL license before? Doesn't selling it under a (non-free) commercial license go against everything the FSF stands for?
- colejohnson66 5y agoQt famously is dual commercial/LGPL licensed. And while a commercial offering does go against the FSF’s ideals, it’s a necessary evil in some circumstances.
- mkl 5y agoIt's quite common. Here are Richard Stallman's own words: "I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on occasion I've suggested it to companies. Sometimes this approach has made it possible for important programs to become free software." and "I consider selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed." and more. The whole article is worth a read: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling-exceptions.en.html
- salmo 5y agoThe FSF party line is that it isn’t anti commercial and the GPL is copyleft, not viral. But you know… But dual licensing has been around for decades and I’ve never heard them oppose it. In practice here, no commercial licensee will want to maintain a fork. All improvements are in the OSS version available to any GPLed software.