2009/1/1 jtd <jtd@mtnl...>:
> Are you serious?. A company with a big legal team and world wide sale
> does not understand the term commercial?.
> I had specifically wrote to them that the gpl allows you to write
> commercial (sell / trade) software subject to the terms of the gpl,
> just in case they were actually that dumb and could not read legal
> docs or the dictionary.
Some terms are used anyway even though it is confusing or they know it
is not correct or we campaign not to use it, because that is so
common. intellectual property is one such example. commercial is
another. Why there is a controversy about Linux and GNU/Linux? Or why
people still use the word pirate?
> Presuming ANYTHING about a licence is extremely dangerous. One has to
> go strictly by what is written in the licence. In this case does the
> notice.txt form part of the licence or not?. If they have a file
> called licence.txt and within they say refer notice.txt, then
> notice.txt most certainly is part of the licence.
You don't have to presume anything. The code has GPL license and plus
they have eased the requirement of derivative works to be under GPL,
to a list of foss licenses.