|
From: Freddie C. <fca...@sd...> - 2005-09-16 02:34:15
|
> Joe Cooper wrote: >> Craig White wrote: >>> ---- >>> good for you guys - I think that is a logical extension of the >>> webmin/virtualmin product. >> Thanks for the encouragement! We felt that way too. It just >> became apparent that it was the best way to answer the needs of >> commercial hosting providers, without causing any pain to users of >> the GPL version. >> And thanks for all of the good advice. I'll comment on each bit >> inline below. > Glad this thread is continuing because I was wondering a bit more > this morning and hadn't had a chance to followup today. > I am all for you guys making money, and if this is related to the > Open Country announcement then so be it, > But I wonder how it is justified under the terms of GPL? If the > original code is GPL, isn;t all derivative code, and and with few > exceptions with ways of linking, everything attached to it GPL? They write they code. The develop the product. They release the product. They choose the license. There's nothing stopping the programmers from dual-licensing the product. You want the features in VirtualMin Pro, then you get the commercial license (with or without the source is irrelevant). Or, you wait a few months/years until those features hit the GPL'd VirtualMin release. This is virtually the same config as TrollTech uses for QT, and MySQL AB uses for MySQL, and that Daniel Baron uses for DansGuardian. > And doesn't GPL require products that are released to customers, such > as professional ISPs to install on their own machines surely will get, > isn't it required that code be made available? Only if it's released under the GPL. If it is released under a different license, this is moot. Granted, I haven't looked too deeply at the VirtualMin Pro site, so take the above with a grain of salt. :) --=20 Freddie Cash, CCNT CCLP Helpdesk / Network Support Tech. School District 73 (250) 377-HELP [377-4357] fc...@sd... hel...@sd... |