GPL & "non profit use only"

[Janez Pers]

Luke Kenneth Casson Leighton wrote:

>  however if the software's dual-licensed (vanilla GPL and
> GPL+contradictory-GPL-modifications) then that would be okay, because
> there would be a choice.  if no such choice is given, it's really
> simple: it's no longer the GPL and no longer an "OSI-approved"
> license.

It is not an issue of dual licensing, it is clearly GPL with
ad-hoc added terms. (Dual licensing is pretty much clear
and a very good option (e.g. you pay NOT to be bound with
GPL, which may be pretty reasonable business decision).

I have seen several such cases with added terms, so I am asking.
(I have hoped there is a precedent somewhere out there
which would serve as a guideline)

My take on it is, that it is an abuse of GPL. GPL was meant
to provide free software, and provide it on clear terms.
If I see "GPL 2 or later" in the licensing terms, I may
take a decision I otherwise would not and be latter sorry
and even in dispute with author - and he is wasting my
time by weaseling around with GPL, when he does not really
mean it.

Why on earth slapping GPL on your code if you do not
want it to be free in a word and letter of GPL? There
are a number of licensing options out there, including
"you may use this code if you personally deliver
a box of candies to me and perform a triple salto", which
is perfectly clear and legal licensing option.

I will probably write to the author and try to clarify
what he means. I believe the honest solution would be
to remove mentioning GPL from the license, not to mention
(!!) direct link to GPL home page, where one can clearly
see that his combination of terms constitutes a conflict, which
disqualifies his code from slapping GPL on it.

The issue is especially contentious in scientific
community, when authors don't want someone takes their
work and profit from it, which is perfectly reasonable,
but GPL-incompatible. GPL inevitably assumes that I,
another scientist, may take their code, build my improvements
on top of it and then commercially use the combined stuff.
And I am sure a lot of people from scientific community
would not like to see that.

Generally, I think nobody can use this software, because ANY use
of this software is the breach of license - either you
break author's added terms or you break GPL terms, since your
derived code cannot be distributed really "free" as in
GPL "free software" source.