Re: WTEST license conditions
[removed the author from the recipients, as I see that he is anyway on
the *right* way to make it free]
On Wed, Apr 21, 1999 at 04:11:59PM -0400, Ben Pfaff wrote:
> Gregor Hoffleit <flight@mathi.uni-heidelberg.de> writes:
>
> COPYRIGHT
>
> This software adheres to the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE.
>
> You can re-use portions of this software and create a modified
> version of the software only if the resultant work also adheres to
> GPL.
>
> COST
>
> The software is free for non-commercial use.
Ok, it is free (for non -commercial). But does it say anywhere else that
for "commercial use" it is non-free?
He has already put it under GPL, then he can only restrict it, ... but
he didn't! He simply reaffirm something that was already true.
It would be different if it was
All rights reserved, free for non-commercial use.
then it would have been "reserved for commercial use".
But instead it is:
GPL. Free for non-commercial use.
It is still free IMHO. It has not retracted freedom.
I know of another licence like that: Berkeley DB. It says:
This software is under BSD license.
This software is free for non-commercial use.
Call it a marketing trick, not a legal statement.
> If you decide to use this software to test a commercial web site
> please send a mail to bibhas@interlog.com.
>
> That's just a request, not a requirement, hence the `please'. IMO,
> IANAL, HAD.
In fact, it doesn't say "you cannot use it for testing a site unless you
have asked permission from me".
It says: send me email.
If the message bounce, it's OK.
But anyway, let's make it pure GPL.
These "annotations" are always a dangerous example.
fab
--
| fpolacco@prosa.it fpolacco@debian.org gsm: +358 (0)40 707 2468
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E
| fabrizio.polacco@nokia.com fab@pukki.ntc.nokia.com
Reply to: