James Simmons <jsimmons@transvirtual.com> writes:
>> > Another model you might consider, one which would probably make you
>> > more money, make us happier, and better avoid "freeloaders", would be
>> > to make bitkeeper free for use with free software only. This would be
>> > rather similar to what I use for reiserfs, which is free for use with
>> > free operating systems only,
>>
>> Really? I thought ReiserFS was released under the GPL. Is this no
>> longer the case?
>
> Because something is GPL doesn't mean it is free dollar wise. GPL is free
> as in free speech not free beer.
That's not my point. Of course you can charge for GPLed software, or,
as the copyright holder, offer different licensing options for a fee.
However, if you release software under the GPL, you do not prevent
people from using it on proprietary operating systems.
-- Florian Weimer Weimer@CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE University of Stuttgart http://CERT.Uni-Stuttgart.DE/people/fw/ RUS-CERT +49-711-685-5973/fax +49-711-685-5898 - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Apr 15 2002 - 22:00:17 EST