Re: Are these copyright notices compatible with GPLv2+?
> >> //1. The users agree not to charge for the model owner code itself
but may
> >> //charge for additions, extensions, or support.
>
> I do not think this is not a problem in practice. If you add a
> trivial addition to the code, then you are allowed to charge for the
> code.
I think it would be a problem in practice. If you want to charge for
the code and then make a trivial addition to the code so you can, then
it would be not be true that you are charging for the addition.
Perhaps you could get around it by lying and claiming you really are
charging for the addition, but licences should not require people to
lie to get full software freedom. And, I doubt whether it would hold
up in court. It is certainly up for interpretation.
The FSF considers the Open Font License to be Free (though I disagree
with that), since despite not allowing it to be sold by itself, it
does allow you to bundle it with a piece of software and then sell it,
and since you can use a trivial Hello World-type program, it is
practically Free. But, in that case, bundling a trivial program would
still be bundling a program. In this case, charging for the program by
adding a trivial addition is not the same as charging for an addition.
Reply to: