Sent by Ken Wasetis on 29 October 2003 17:05
Sorry, I stand corrected. That is true for GPL, and that is the most common license for OS
software, but in my experience, many OS CMS systems were originally commercial tools that were then
open sourced and the vendor that offered the OS license typically has developed its own slant on the
licensing in which you can't charge for the 'core' product.
> > Typically, and almost by definition, any open source tools you are
> > considering would disallow charging a fee for the product, but do allow
> > you to charge a fee for services, such as distribution,
> > consulting/customizattion, or the development of add-on modules.
> >
>
> That is not quite correct. The GPL in no way affects your ability to
> sale, re-sale, profit from, etc a GPL product. What it prevents is the
> original copyright to be removed or changed. Free software by definition
> is about the sourcecode, and not about the price of the software.
>
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney
>
> Is a good reference, and also clearly states what is intended by the
> license. Now, what it does do is place the project that forks any GPL
> product on the same footing as the original project. If you take a GPL
> project, do some modifications, and release the project under a different
> name and sale the code, then there is nothing to stop me from buying said
> code and re-incorporating it back into the original project.
>
> Hence, there is a constraint, but the constraint is that you need to add
> constant value and play by the rules of the original project. Are there
> better business models to go after as you suggested? Sure, but to say
> that you can not sale GPL source is not the case at all:)
>
>
> --
> J. Cox
> http://www.xaraya.com
> http://www.wyome.com
--
http://cms-list.org/
please trim your posts.
