On Mon, Mar 6, 2017 at 11:28 AM, Randy Barlow <bowlofeggs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The slight contradiction I referenced is the "if you can't meet the > GPL" bit. The first paragraph specifically cites making money by > redistributing, but the second paragraph sounds like they think it's OK > if you follow the GPL terms. It's confusing. I think Remi is right to > say that we need to get clarification before we can add this package to > Fedora. It is a bit confusing, and I'm wondering if this is what would be considered a "field of use" limitation - something similar to the (bad) JSON license, which contains an unparseable "the Software must be used for good, not evil" condition [1]. The GPL obviously allows you to redistribute and make money from that redistribution, but it does impose terms upon your derived works that you may be unable to comply with if your application that uses the library is proprietary - in that case, it seems the author is saying "let's talk, we can come to some arrangement on a license acceptable to you", MongoDB does similar things (licensed as AGPL, with commercial licensing available in the highly likely event for an enterprise that you don't want to distribute the code to your web application that uses it). Either way, it seems VERY poorly worded. [1] http://www.json.org/license.html _______________________________________________ legal mailing list -- legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to legal-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
