Look over on Groklaw.net there is an excellent guide to the GPL and the differences between a licence and a contract (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214 210634851). There is nothing wrong with a duel licence policy. The payment for the GPL is that if you extend a product you contribute the addition to the common pool. If you would rather pay money to the owner to by-pass this then OK. It is his code after all. Of course this can also form part of the protection. A project with many contributors requires all of them to agree or for the bits belonging to those that do not agree to be removed and re-written from a functional specification (reverse engineered). The GPL is not about refuseing to make money it is about making it form services while jointly maintaining a common pool of code.
Slashdot Mirror
Look over on Groklaw.net there is an excellent guide to the GPL and the differences between a licence and a contract (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20031214 210634851). There is nothing wrong with a duel licence policy. The payment for the GPL is that if you extend a product you contribute the addition to the common pool. If you would rather pay money to the owner to by-pass this then OK. It is his code after all. Of course this can also form part of the protection. A project with many contributors requires all of them to agree or for the bits belonging to those that do not agree to be removed and re-written from a functional specification (reverse engineered). The GPL is not about refuseing to make money it is about making it form services while jointly maintaining a common pool of code.