Question about GPL and non-free dual licensing

[Ben Finney <bignose+hates-spam@benfinney.id.au>]

Shriramana Sharma <samjnaa@gmail.com> writes:

> Say someone creates a library libfoo in the C language. The library
> is dual-licenced -- under the GPL and under a commercial
> licence.

Please note that the GPL *is* a commercial license. Nothing in it
prevents anyone engaging in commerce -- selling the software or
anything related to it -- and many organisations and individuals have
been doing exactly that for many years.

Free software *is* commercial software; any software with a license
that restricted its sale is non-free by definition. Mistakenly using
"commercial" as though it were the opposite of "free" spreads the
fallacy.

    <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/selling.html>

The distinction you may be looking for is "under the GPL and under a
non-free license".

    <URL:http://www.fsf.org/licensing/essays/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial>

-- 
 \        "The errors of great men are venerable because they are more |
  `\  fruitful than the truths of little men."  -- Friedrich Nietzsche |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney