> The other model used sometimes is to dual license. Provide a free > version under the GPL and a sell a version that companies can take > proprietary. Whether this makes sense with kermit, of course, I have no > idea -- it depends mostly on how the large unix vendors in question are > using the kermit code (are they simply including it in the OS > distribution, or using the code in new products?).
As far as I know, kermit is only ever used as a standalone binary, so I can't see a way to make this apply. > It could also get a bit tricky with contributions -- if people > contribute new code under the GPL the kermit folks wouldn't be able > to add it to the for-proprietary version. If they chose this model > they'd have to get permission for this from contributors. That would also be a problem (or plain impossible), the kermit codebase dates back to at least 1985, and a *lot* of people have contributed features/bugfixes. Thanks, Ian. -- Ian Beckwith - [EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://nessie.mcc.ac.uk/~ianb/ GPG fingerprint: AF6C C0F1 1E74 424B BCD5 4814 40EC C154 A8BA C1EA Listening to: Handsome Family - Through the Trees - Stalled
