Alexander Terekhov wrote:
Mathias Gaunard wrote:
Martin Schulz wrote:
If you want to release your code a open source but reserve commercial uses to your own, you may choose the GPL
The GPL perfectly allows commercial use. It's just that it may not be
Not so [**BIG** snip] neither the original author, nor any creator of a revised or improved version, may charge for the software or allow any successor to charge. [more snippage]
That is not in contradition to: "The GPL allows commercial use". If Microsoft distributed Word under the GPL, then I could still use Word at my office (which is what "commercial use" means). I just wouldn't have to pay for it (and couldn't charge others for it). I also think the learned judge is wrong. The original author /may/ charge for the software. The author didn't receive the software under the terms of the GPL, so may do what he likes with it (including charge). Of course, he may not have many purchasers ... (Also note that if the community submits a patch, the original author can't sell anything containing that patch.) Final thought: This is all off topic for the boost mailing list. As I understand it, new boost libraries /must/ be licensed under the BGL; end of story. -- Martin Bonner Senior Software Engineer/Team Leader PI SHURLOK LTD Telephone: +44 1223 441434 / 203894 (direct) Fax: +44 1223 203999 Email: martin.bonner@pi-shurlok.com www.pi-shurlok.com disclaimer