3 ms·
It is worth noting that this is also the opinion of RMS.
by saosebastiao 12y ago
It is worth noting that this is also the opinion of RMS.
- hyp0 12y agoDo you have a reference for that? I thought he was against dual-licensing (i.e. selling a commercial license for your GPL code). BTW I did this. It worked, but I stopped because some companies took months to pay: they already had the code. This wore me down.
- saosebastiao 12y agohttps://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions https://www.fsf.org/blogs/rms/selling-exceptions
- jordigh 12y agoBtw, the GPL is a commercial license. I wish people would stop thinking that the opposite of GPL is commercial, otherwise businesses like Red Hat couldn't exist. The GPL explicitly allows selling the software. It just doesn't allow locking it down. FTFGPL: You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee.