3 ms·
IANAL either - but I believe if the author wants those restrictions they would have to modify and include a custom version of the GPL. If they did this I would
by nadams 12y ago
IANAL either - but I believe if the author wants those restrictions they would have to modify and include a custom version of the GPL. If they did this I would stay far away as any project that included his library would automatically be licensed under his custom GPL.
I would suggest to the author to just license it under the GPL if they want it restrictive - and offer a commercial license for people who don't want to give up custom code.
I don't think a lot of people realize that a condition of the GPL is that if you distribute it in compiled form you must make available the source (exception would be server type applications like wordpress which Affero GPL was supposed to close that "loophole"). You may sell GPL software, but once someone buys it they may give it away for free[1].
[1] - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAvailabilityToPublic http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLRequireAv...
- TheDong 12y agoHe could very well write a custom GPL that is compatible with regular GPL, thus allowing any project to include his project to be GPL or his custom GPL, not only his GPL variant.
- nsgi 12y agoThe project would have to allow commercial use, which would contradict his custom GPL.
- NotEMoose 12y agoExcept the GPL is actually non-free: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Derivations https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Der... However you could make a derivative, but it's of little value.
- belorn 12y agoThe preamble text of the GPL is non-free, as is the usage of the name GPL and GNU in it. I could not find if GPL and GNU is trademarked, as that would serve a similar purpose.