Mandrake and the commercial license

Tue Dec 17 14:29:16 UTC 2002

On Tue, 2002-12-17 at 15:04, Simo Sorce wrote:
> It's the same thing SuSe (and now UnitedLinux) do with the Yast
> installer. The distribution becomes unusable/uninstallable without it.
> So if it's use is limited (and it is), you cannot replicate the
> distribution. (tough you are always free to take and distribute any
> package that is free software.

Someone made me notice this phrase can be misguiding.
I was speaking of the Mandrake license, not giving any merit to the
licensing scheme.
Like alessandro I think dual licensing may be a good thing.
Remember you always have the same product available with the GPL License
on it.
But I also think Rui Miguel is right, speaking of a Commercial License
as opposed to the GPL License is unfair.

If they called it a "Service License" they would have made a great job.

Simo.

-- 
Simo Sorce - simo.sorce at xsec.it
Xsec s.r.l.
via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano
tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://lists.fsfe.org/pipermail/discussion/attachments/20021217/70785539/attachment.sig>