[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On 12/10/12 13:41, Simon Waters wrote:
On 12/10/12 12:24, Rob Beard wrote:Hi folks, I've been having a look at setting up an IPCop box with DansGuardian. During my search on how to get it installed on IPCop I came across this: http://dansguardian.org/?page=copyright2 DansGuardian 2 is: - *licensed under the GPL version 2 with permission to link to OpenSSL* - Open Source - Free Software where 'Free' means Freedom - freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for non-commercial use - freely (no cost) downloadable from this site for general purpose unix distributions like FreeBSD, Debian, Fedora, Ubuntu, etc - not freely downloadable from this site for installation by 3rd parties charging for installation or support - *not freely downloadable from this site for commercial use* - a registered trade mark of Daniel Barron - copyright Daniel Barron The thing I was wondering, it's released under the GPL 2 but the author of the software appears to be adding additional restrictions to the software when downloaded from his site... basically it can't be used for commercial use.Yes, he is asking you to pay for your copy downloaded from his site. This is allowed under the GPL.
Ahh I see, I got the impression that on his site he was selling licences. The download license costs per site are as follows: 50 pounds sterling ($89 US or EURO) for 1-99 computers per unix-like server75 pounds sterling ($130 US or EURO) for 100-249 computers per unix-like server
and so on going up in increments of £25 to £50 ish.
Once you have a copy then you have the full GPLv2 rights to give your copy away.
Fair enough. I presume this must be how distros do it then.
But note the obligation to supply source code is on you, not on them, if you follow this path.
Yep, I presume this relates to all GPL'd software, if someone distributes it then they should make the source code available?
As it happens I'm not looking to use it for commercial use, but it seems odd that it's restricted this way.I think it is the presentation of the restriction that is odd not the behaviour. e.g. Putting this presentation on the site with the licensing details. Redhat subscriptions cover getting updates to GPLv2 software (amongst other bits, and other free software). Centos is basically someone giving their copy of Redhat's distribution away by using those freedoms. The odd bit is the free for non-commercial use. So you can download it as yourself, decide it does what your company wants and sell your copy to your company that is interested in it. e.g. You could become the equivalent of Centos.
Ahh okay. How I understand it Centos take the source, remove any Redhat bits and re-compile it and re-release it along with source?
Hopefully people will just pay up if they want it for commercial use.
Yep, it's been a while since I looked into content filtering, I gather that other commercial products aren't cheap so I guess even at 50 quid for a company to use it doesn't break the bank.
If he removed the "GPLv2" reference from the website, and included a note saying "Parts of this software are distributed under the GPLv2" in the CD case he sends you when you pay for it like some Cisco routers, would you think it odd?
Not so much no. It seems to be a common occurrence these days with hardware to have a slip of paper in there or something in the manual with the GPL and details of how to obtain the source.
Rob -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq