Richard Braakman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: David Starner wrote: > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------8<= ------------ > > LPRng is distributed under the GNU software license for > > non-commercial use, the Artistic License for limited com=AD > > mercial use. Commerical support and licensing is avail=AD > > able through Patrick Powell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------8<= ------------ > What's so strange? How I understand it is that you can use it under the > GPL or Artistic License. If you need support or want to include it in a > program without following the Artistic or GPL, then email him and he'll > hook you up - probably for a hefty fee. Still, completely DFSG-free.
No, it's strange. "under the GNU software license for non-commercial use". No such license exists. I think you're obfuscating the meaning of that phrase. To me, it is clear that he means that you can use the GNU GPL if you don't need to incorporate LPRng into a commercial product. In any case, the text makes clear that commercial use is limited. This is not free. The GNU GPL does limit commercial use--you can't incorporate GPL'd code into your commercial product if you aren't going to distribute source code and the right to redistribute. This is, IMO, what the author is referring to.
