Hacker News Reader

Comment by sneak | Hacker News Reader

If it's really GPLv3, then that would be called "donationware", as free-as-in-freedom software is also free-as-in-beer, as the author acknowledges in the README.

The license seems ambiguous though because there's no LICENSE file in the repo and the website has copy about requiring a paid license to use the software; the only place GPLv3 is mentioned is in the README. I opened an issue requesting clarification.

https://github.com/kofigumbs/multi/issues/37

View on HN

Actually the GPL never says you cannot sell your software. It just says you have to provide source with it and you cannot prevent others from redistributing the source.

Edit: no idea what the software mentioned above does, just correcting a common misconception.

Author here—my understanding of the GPL matches that in the sibling comment. "GPL never says you cannot sell your software. It just says you have to provide source with it and you cannot prevent others from redistributing the source."

If I'm incorrectly co-opting some open source nomenclature, I'd love if someone could let me know. As I said in the issue linked above, I do need to update the purchase website to bring that language more inline with what's on GitHub.

I didn't read your specific wording but generally - using GPL in this fashion is perfectly fine and quite common.

Many shops that "sell" GPL software (ie. the massive WordPress plugin and theme ecosystem) are actually selling support, convenient, secure(ish) updates, and good karma.

It's perfectly legit. You can find the sources for these items elsewhere on the web but the hassle and security implications just aren't worth it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com