Talk:Baudline
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, which collaborates on articles related to physics. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ] | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating within physics. | |
|
Please rate this article, and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. |
||
[edit] User Group
Baudline has a user group / mailing list that anyone can join at groups.google.com/group/baudline
Is the proper place for this user group link here on this discussion page or in the External Links section of the main article page? (Baudline 19:54, 27 May 2006 (UTC))
[edit] License
Can a program released under GPL, be payed for the source?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.37.189.66 (talk • contribs).
- The wording of your question doesn't make sense. But if you meant, "Can a person pay money in exchange for the source of a program released under the GPL?", then the answer is yes. Pricing policy is not restricted by the GPL. --Ds13 18:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm confused. This baudline FAQ entry says:
The about baudline window says "All distribution is explicitly prohibited." This means you can download a copy for yourself, you can tell your friends where to download a copy, but you can't go distributing copies. * You can't copy baudline on CD's or floppies and sell or give them away. * You can't put a copy of baudline on your web site or server unless you get our explicit permission. * If you are a computer manufacturer or VAR you can't put copies of baudline on the machines you sell. * Also putting baudline on an automatic download or update system like some Linux vendors are bringing online is considered distribution and is not allowed. Usage is not restricted. So personal, commercial, educational, or government uses are all OK. Basically you are prohibited from any form of mass redistribution without first getting explicit permission from SigBlips. This will usually require some form of licensing agreement. Please contact us for more information about baudline licensing, services, and support.
So how is that a GPL/Propietary dual license? Besides, if you go to the downloads section, you don't get sources for the latest binary version, but some previous one. This is just weird. W2bh 04:31, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
- Basically they are saying that the proprietary binary has a different set of rights than the GPL source code. Spectrogram 18:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- OK, I'm sorry, but that's not dual licensing. Dual licensing is when you release a piece of software with a copyright statement that says "here, have this software under either license A o B, it's up to you". And this is NOT it. W2bh 20:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- What you just described, A or B, is a dual license for license compatibility purposes. Qt uses a different dual license model which is the same A or B choice but B costs money. The Wikipedia dual license page also has a proprietary works section which mentions segregating users into groups. So that's three examples of different dual licensing models and it is possible that there are even more variations. Spectrogram 23:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
-
The web site mentions that the source code is "very expensive". But, if it's under the GPL, what would prevent people from distributing the source code? This does not make any sense. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 87.165.64.216 (talk • contribs).
- The baudline source code can be purchased under a couple of different licenses. Purchase the GPL source code and you can distribute the source and binaries by the terms of the GPL. Purchase the source code with a proprietary license and you need to follow those specific distribution terms. Different licenses with different terms for different goals and purposes. (Baudline 17:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC))
As far as I can tell, the current version of baudline is not GPL. The download page makes no reference to "GNU" or "GPL". Does anyone have a citation for the existence of any copylefted version? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 19:35, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
