4 ms·
> This doesn't sound right. You'd be forbidden from selling non-GPLv3 access to any of the existing code, even under a new brand, and any plugins that you crea
by Mikeb85 13y ago
> This doesn't sound right. You'd be forbidden from selling non-GPLv3 access to any of the existing code, even under a new brand, and any plugins that you created would either be GPLv3, or not distributable at all.
You can definitely sell GPLv3 software. As long as the source is available and you abide by the terms of the licence.
- Gepser 13y agoExactly!
- cjbprime 13y agoI know that -- that's why I said "selling non-GPLv3 access". The point is that the LT devs can do something with your contributions (sell them under non-GPLv3 for money as part of a non-GPLv3 Light Table) that you can't, and it's reasonable that some would find this distasteful.
- mbreese 13y agoUnless you do a copyright assignment to them, they couldn't sell your GPL3 contributions under a non-GPLv3 license. It wouldn't just be distasteful, but would be against the license.
- Mikeb85 13y agoThey actually can't, since your contributions have to be GPLv3 and thus their inclusion of your code has to be as well. The entire point of the GPL is to prevent what you're suggesting.
- vitorbaptistaa 13y agoThat is true, if the LT team doesn't require a copyright assignment by all contributors (or similar). If they do, they can relicense it. That's the question being discussed.