The gist of the GPLv3 is that you're free to sell/modify/redistribute the software as long as your customers have the same freedoms and you need to provide source code for any modified versions you distribute.
Also the freedom must be reality and not theoretical. For example, you can't make it so users can't install modified versions nor may anything you use be a "technical protection measure" for the purposes of the DMCA's anti circumvention clause.
Anonymous posters seem to tend toward the silly. (S)he wants to license a work on his/her own terms and then says it "doesn't seem right" when others want to do the same.
The gist of the GPLv3 is that you're free to sell/modify/redistribute the software as long as your customers have the same freedoms and you need to provide source code for any modified versions you distribute.
Also the freedom must be reality and not theoretical. For example, you can't make it so users can't install modified versions nor may anything you use be a "technical protection measure" for the purposes of the DMCA's anti circumvention clause.
Anonymous posters seem to tend toward the silly. (S)he wants to license a work on his/her own terms and then says it "doesn't seem right" when others want to do the same.
Pages