Is this a joke? "licensed under the GPL" & "not free for commercialAs far as I can tell there is nothing wrong with this. In fact I've seen this quite alot.
use".
The GPL does not prevent anyone from making money.
No, it certainly doesn't. However, you may notice that the money that, e.g. Linux vendors make from their product is in the sale of packaged products or the sale of updates. The source is free to distribute under the GPL, but if you want it to keep working, you'll need to pay to use our YaST / APT / up2date / etc. Or if you need to support it in your commercial environment then you'll need the ability to talk to our engineers, who charge $x per yr.
Take Nessus for example. New GPL scripts will, after Jan. 1, be available instantly to the public. Non-GPL plugins will be available, albeit delayed 7 days, only if you register with them. To get everything as you have been, you have to now pay $1200 per scanner per year. Yet the Nessus scanner itself is still GPL. No conflict, only business model.
DG on the other hand is providing two licenses for the same product dependant upon use, without realizing that the first license allows you to involve a third-party who could then redistribute without the business clause. If that is NOT the intention or letter of the license (IANAL), but rather that there is a GPL-with-restriction that carries the business requirement over to any license of any derivative of DG held by the third-party, then it is not as free as the GPL claim that DG makes. Either way, it seems poorly constructed. Is there any wonder that the BSD license is often adored for its simplicity?
But this does not help anyone get Clam working better/faster/stronger, so we should probably move on.
-- Seth _______________________________________________ http://lists.clamav.net/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/clamav-users
