bkerler
Is the line talking about the license in the README correct?
In the README it can be read:
Published under GPLv3 license Additional license limitations: No use in commercial products without prior permit.
The GPLv3 doesn't really allow that and also makes this software non free software in case of being correct.
Does this talk about privative commercial products only or it is also extended to libre software commercial products?
I hope this message reaches you well, thank you for your work.
This is stated in the copy of the GPLv3 license you have in the repository:
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
By the way it's also recommended that there is clear indication whether a project is "GNU GPL 3.0 only" licensed or alternatively and preferably "GNU GPL 3.0 or (at your option) any later version" licensed. I decided to not open a new issue for this because it seemed rather fitting to the topic of this one.
This is stated in the copy of the GPLv3 license you have in the repository:
All other non-permissive additional terms are considered "further restrictions" within the meaning of section 10. If the Program as you received it, or any part of it, contains a notice stating that it is governed by this License along with a term that is a further restriction, you may remove that term. If a license document contains a further restriction but permits relicensing or conveying under this License, you may add to a covered work material governed by the terms of that license document, provided that the further restriction does not survive such relicensing or conveying.
Also concerning this, from my understanding the restriction doesn't have to be removed it just may be ignored by everyone.
Thank you for reading my message.
