On 2-Oct-05, at 6:01 PM, Greg Brown wrote:

>
> Kevin Brown wrote:
>
>> This is why I'm responding.  It's the problem I have with the FSF and 
>> the
>> like.  It's 100% _POSSIBLE_.  It's easy to do.  Dual licensing even 
>> fits in
>> the GPL.  Whether that fits into the piles of ethics of above groups 
>> is the
>> only question, but there was never a problem with the possibility of 
>> doing
>> so.  So it annoys me to no end when these groups refer to the 
>> possibility of
>> a concept when they really mean "should we say this an ok usage of 
>> free
>> software?"  Which is ironic as it implies that _free_ software should 
>> have
>> controls to FORCE it to STAY FREE OR ELSE YOU EVIL CAPITALIST PIG, 
>> which is
>> in many ways as unfree as the very software I'm writing.
>
> Permitting software to be commercial is part of the definition of free
> software.  Non-commercial licenses are NOT considered free software by
> the FSF.  In fact, to be GPL compatible, a license must explicitly
> allow for commercial sale.

Not necessarily, the license just must not explicitly forbid commercial 
sale to be GPL compatible.

> <insult>
> ...
> </insult>

Can't we all just get along?

--
Jeremy Tregunna
jtregunna / blurgle.ca

"If debugging is the process of removing bugs, then programming must be 
the process of putting them in." --Dykstra