Licenses question (was: Re: port of prevayler)

goran.hultgren at goran.hultgren at
Tue Feb 18 07:45:00 UTC 2003

cg at wrote:
>  <squeak-dev at> said:
> >>From section 2 b of GPL:
> >This is what is commonly referred to the "viral" property of GPL. So if
> >I include code under GPL in my program then I am not free to choose my
> >own license anymore for my program.
> >
> Indeed. One bit of GPL code in your image, and your whole image must be
> redistributed under the GPL - which is clearly impossible given the
> conditions of the SqueakL.
> >Sidenote: The "at no charge" above got me confused - has GPL always had
> >this clause? I am having a hard time understanding that clause since I
> >was under the impression that I can carge whatever I like for software
> >under GPL - as long as I include the source.
> You can charge whatever you like, but not for the software license. At
> least, that's what I recall.

Yes, I have always "known" that you can charge whatever you like for the
"program" so... aha, you mean that the above only applies to the source
code? Ok. But that isn't really clear is it? This is probably why so
many think you can't charge for GPL software.

And another thing - is it just me, or is the part describing derived
works and part of a whole etc new? It says 1991 at the top so it can't
be new, but I didn't recognize it. Bah, probably just early senility
kicking in. :-)

regards, Göran

More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list