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 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Easterbrook ("Frank Hoover Easterbrook (born 1948) is Chief Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Right, it is easy enough to find people to make your point. And the more popular an opinion is the easier it gets.
http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/fdocs/docs.fwx?submit=showbr&shofile=06-2454_008.pdf
"Authors who distribute their works under this license, devised by the Free Software Foundation, Inc., authorize not only copying but also the creation of derivative works
Correct.
--and the license prohibits charging for the derivative work.
Not correct, or at best, misleading.
People may make and distribute derivative works if and only if they come under the same license terms as the original work.
Correct again. I'd just like to point out that "to charge for someone's work" is a somewhat ambiguous term. People have certain conceptions of how economy works, and thus, that changes to economic relationships as imposed by the GPL are hard to grasp, as it requires people to adjust their preconceptions. That's always challenging. There are numerous companies that seem to be able to commercialize on Free Software (for example by not charging for the software as a product, but the work on it as a service). Thus, it would be more appropriate to talk about proprietary use, as opposed to commercial use. Sorry for the off-topic post. I won't further engage into this discussion. FWIW, Stefan -- ...ich hab' noch einen Koffer in Berlin...