GPL2+ or compatible does actually mean (in normal words)
1. You have to ship the sourcecode to the one you give the Software
2. This person is allowed to modify, redistrubte or sell it to others without limitations
3. The person who receives the software is not allowed to re-licence the software with a not GPL2+ compatible licence. So is he shares / sells the Sofware, same rules apply as you see in 1., 2., 3.

GPL2+ or compatible does actually allow:
1. To sell GPL2 licenced software. You can sell OpenOffice for 1 Million Dollar (if somebody will buy it actually)
2. Keep your own developed code - you only have to share it to the one receives the sofware.

So in conclusion, open source (GPL+ or c.) is "free in terms of speech" but not "free in terms of beer" in general.

Drupal Wiki is distributed with the GPL2+ c. licence of course and we highly respect that licence. We work with it.

Though we already share or contributions with the Drupal Community, we are not sharing all of those and you cannot download it for free.

Hopes this explains it to you, feel free to ask.

Last edited by kontextwork (2010-05-16 17:38:20)

sbusso wrote:

You are playing on the words and mislead people writing it s free and open source. It s not. Also there is no code repository no free usage.

Bad way to promote a commercial product.

We are sorry if you feel misleaded, but actually we are just playing by the Wikimatrx rules and definitions. We neither can change nor influence them at all.

Here you have the defintion of the "Free and Open Source"-field on Wikimatrix ( the left [i] button beside the 'Free and Open Source' field when you view a wiki-profile). Here is the direct link: http://www.wikimatrix.org/wiki/feature: … n%20Source

.. Please note that “free” does not refer to the price here 1). ..

If you look at our recent changes you will see that we started with "no" in that field and changed to yes, after we recognised what the defintion is. So if you feel misleaded you might ask the Wikimatrix-crew to change the wording or give a better hint.

There are also hints on the GPL2+ licence page in the FAQ aswell as on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source

Agriculture
..
"Free software is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of 'free' as in 'free speech' not as in 'free beer.'"

(thats what i actually quoted above)
You can also read it particularly on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Software_Definition

This defintion is pretty inline with the difintion of "commercial open source" and is nothing new.

So we are not creating a new licence model to trick anybody, i think its more the confusion about what free means - it was just bad wording in the initial release back in the days. It's our philosophy to work with open source software and contribute on that field.

And we respect the GPL2+ licence as we actually love the way it is. And as you can see here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm … singTheGPL - free was never ment to be free of charge

Last edited by kontextwork (2010-06-05 13:45:07)

I agree that the sale of the Drupal Wiki is in line with the GPL2+ or compatible; however I do feel that it is a little misleading to have a Drupal Wiki install profile listed on drupal.org stating it "will provide a list of tools written for www.drupal-wiki.com to provide an enterprise Wiki + Social Network platform".

If the Drupal Wiki install profile is not going to be provided please update the information on drupal.org.