Comprehensive AJAX Platform Released as Open Source [LWN.net]

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 10, 2006 20:30 UTC (Tue) by pyxis (subscriber, #15886) [Link]

From the ThinkCAP page ThinkCAP Pricing and Licensing:

Non-Commercial Distribution: Open Source GPL For non-commercial distribution, that is, if you aren't going to include ThinkCAP JX in a software package you sell or redistribute outside your company, the ThinkCAP JX Framework is free of charge and is available under the GPL License. The GPL covers organizations building applications for internal use as well as Application Service Providers (ASPs) providing their software as a hosted solution without installing software at their customer's sites.

How can they release code under the GPL and tell developers how use GPL'd software ???

If I understand correctly, ThinkCAP can't be distributed in a linux distro... or selled as part of a software suite, with some pieces GPL'd.

But... if the license is GPL with restrictions, is not GPL any more...

I'm wrong ???

Or I'm right and ThinkCAP is misinforming developers about the GPL???

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 10, 2006 22:17 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

I think you're right.

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 10, 2006 23:02 UTC (Tue) by dmh (guest, #14528) [Link]

Absolutely. This is rather odd.

From their FAQ:

We've spend roughly 20 person-years of effort building ThinkCAP JX over the past 5 years and believe it provides tremendous value. We also feel that if an organization wishes to use ThinkCAP in another commercial product and monetizes ThinkCAP then we should be paid for that right. So if you believe in open source completely, then GPL should be fine for you--it keeps the software free. If you believe in commercializing software, then the commercial license should make sense as well. The commercial license is very affordable as well for those who need to commercialize ThinkCAP or don't want the risks that might come from using open source software in their code.

They clearly think GPL means non-commercial -- something easily disproved by a visit to Red Hat's web site! They've clearly not done thier homework, and GPL plus restrictions must surely be incompatible with the GPL.

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 10, 2006 23:50 UTC (Tue) by Ross (subscriber, #4065) [Link]

I guess someone should politely explain this to them as they are obviously
confused. Hopefully they would choose to put it under the GPL with full
knowledge, but if not, it's still better for them to know than to feel like
they were tricked about it or finding out it meant something different than
they thought at a later date.

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 11, 2006 4:51 UTC (Wed) by clearnova (guest, #35108) [Link]

Thanks for bringing some un-clear language on our site. I've updated some of it based on this thread. Clearly open source is not antithetical to commercial.

To be clear, if you adhere to the GPL license, you can use/distribute the ThinkCAP framework code as you see fit--even on a Linux distro (please make it so!)

But, if you are like most of the software vendors who call us who don't want to distribute their source code, an alternative license is available. Or like the bank who talked to us last week and told us they don't want GPL anywhere near their IT group, we offer the alternative, proprietary license as well.

Again, my apologies for the unclear language.

--Steve Benfield
vp, strategy
clearnova

GPL only for non-commercial distribution ???

Posted Jan 11, 2006 7:43 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Basically this means that Google is free to use ThinkCAP JX to implement gMail (since they are not distributing anything) but must either buy commercial license or distribute gMail sources under GPL if they plan to use it in a Google Appliance. Right ? Then it's classical dual-licensing: GPL/commercial license. If you want to forbid usage of ThinkCAP JX for in-house Google's development as well - that's GPL with restrictions.

P.S. I choose gMail just to show my point. I think gMail developers implemented everything without help of ThinkCAP JX...

Looks like a perfect candidate for GPLv3 section 7 paragraph (d)

Posted Jan 18, 2006 23:41 UTC (Wed) by xoddam (subscriber, #2322) [Link]

...except that version 3 of the GPL isn't 'official' yet. I suppose you
could adopt the draft as your provisional licence, or modify an existing
licence to add an equivalent clause, but that may cost you some
lawyering.

Dual-licensing under version 2 of the GPL would permit GPL licensees to
elaborate on your product and deploy it on a live website without
publishing their modifications.

If your concern is that non-paying licensees should not keep their
development based on your work to themselves, then a licence provision
requiring them to include a facility to download working site source code
in their deployments would be ideal for your purposes. You would of
course have to implement this facility before releasing the source.