[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7903] Submission of Chestnut S
Re: [Savannah-register-public] Re: [task #7903] Submission of Chestnut Scientific Toolkit Family
Mon, 7 Apr 2008 21:23:38 +0200
On Mon, Apr 07, 2008 at 10:25:46AM +0300, Alexander Shulgin wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 7, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Damian Eads <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi Alexander,
> > > 3. We don't recommend using phrase "All rights reserved" in copyright
> > > statements as it implies/suggests proprietary copyright. Please remove it
> > > from your copyright headers.
> > I should disclose that although we are committed to releasing all of our
> > source under the GPL, we believe that as owners of the copyright to the
> > code, we may sell non-free licenses for the code. Is that consistent with
> > having Savannah host the project? (We understand that we may not re-license
> > contributions of others without permission.)
> I don't believe this is directly against Savannah policies, though,
> somewhat unpleasant.
> Also we have no control over already approved projects which authors'
> might have changed their mind, or have never expressed the intent to
> release their project under a non-free license.
> The only wiki page related to this I've found, states: "If your
> software is also available under a non-free license, please don't
> advertise this on Savannah."
> So what do you people think?
Well, I think this is still better than Expat-licensed software :)
In both cases the software may be used by proprietary vendors, but in
this case, they fund the free software developers (MySQL-style).
If, however, the proprietary version is somehow better than the free
one (VirtualBox-style), then that's different and problematic, because
this is enticing people to use proprietary software.
That being my personal opinion.
The wiki page sounds good - allowing this practice, but not mentioning
it at Savannah.