Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> You hadn't already figured that out? :-) If they wanted free software to be 
> usable by commercial developers, they wouldn't have made the GPL. They would 
> have stuck with really-free software.

  Well, LGPL software can be used in commercial software with only minor
restrictions.

> That said, I'm surprised they're willing to give you legal advice for that 
> little, let alone without paying them at all.  I wonder how it would be 
> delivered: From a lawyer? If so, that's cheap for advice coming from the 
> lawyers of the only people who would be interested in suing you. If not, 
> then it sounds like they may very well be "practicing law without a license."

  From the tone of the email I understood that if I had claimed to be
developing free software, they would have answered my questions, but since
I'm a non-free software developer, then sorry.

  Their response said: "I understand from your description that you are a
proprietary software developer. If I am wrong in this understanding, please
correct me. [...] We offer our services by paid consultation to non-free
software developers."

  I understand this to mean that if I had lied they could perhaps have
answered my questions free of charge.

  And yes, they explicitly refuse to answer the questions:

  "If you do not want to pay for this service, I can only suggest
you carefully review the resources we provide about licensing at
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/licenses.html> and refer to your legal
counsel."

  Of course they are entitled to this. It still somehow feels wrong.
Craft a somewhat ambiguous software usage license on the basis of
freedom, and then outright refuse to clarify it without monetary
compensation, and seemingly only because the person who asked the
question happens to be a non-free software developer.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message