In-Reply-To: <199505092046.PAA09526@monad.armadillo.com>
Message-ID: 
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Status: O
X-Status: 



On Tue, 9 May 1995, david d `zoo' zuhn wrote:

> The Mosaic license and the GPL are quite different.  I cannot sell Mosaic,
> or use it in any money-making venture, without a separate license from
> UIUC.  I *can* sell GCC, and/or use it in a money-making venture, without
> any additional negotiations or license required.
> 
> I think you're confusing GPL with "freely redistributable".  They are not
> the same.  GPL'd software is one small subset of the larger set of freely
> redistributable software.

Actually, you are very correct.  The "official" General Public License 
copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation is a very specific license.

Most of the "generic" GPLs (what is the "proper term" for "freely 
redistributable" these days.  We used to call it copyleft, but that is 
hard to explain to the newcomer.

The BOTTOM LINE, you have to read EACH License very carefully and 
determine whether you need to negotiate for royalties.  In general, it's 
better to negotiate for royalties "Up Front".  We found, when we 
approached WAIS, that they had commercial product that was several orders 
of magnitude more robust.  For very little more than most competitor 
licenses.

	Rex Ballard
	Standard & Poor's/McGraw-Hill
	Opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect
	the Management of the McGraw-Hill Companies.



From rballard@cnj.digex.net Thu May 11 00:35:16 1995